Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Energy Conservation

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the percentage of present energy consumption in Greater London which would be saved if all domestic buildings were fitted with the best existing energy conservation equipment.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): Details of domestic energy consumption and potential savings in Greater London are not available. We are continuing to promote energy savings in all domestic buildings.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister seen the recent "Electricity for Life" report published by Sussex university, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and Friends of the Earth, which suggests that for every pound spent on electricity conservation the consumer would save, say, £1·90 annually and we would have 42 kg less emissions of carbon dioxide? Will the Minister look at the report and consider that aspect? In London, we have only one energy efficiency officer—

clearly an inadequately staffed resource. With substantial investment, we could improve the environment and reduce fuel poverty across our capital city.

Mr. Morrison: I regret that I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Now that he has drawn it to my attention, I will certainly look at it and carefully weigh the arguments. As for the Energy Efficiency Office, the hon. Gentleman is probably aware that more emphasis is being put on localised London officers. That accords with the hon. Gentleman's views and my own.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that he should pay close attention to last Thursday's words of Robert Malpas, currently managing director of BP Oil and chief executive-designate of PowerGen? He said that energy conservation was the great issue of our time and that electricity privatisation was a distraction from it. Does the Minister agree that things have come to a pretty pass when we have to rely on a BP Oil salesman to tell the energy conservation facts of life to Ministers of the Department of Energy?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Energy Efficiency Office budget is much greater—by a factor of about seven times—than it was when the Labour party was last in Government. It does not come well from him to lecture me on precisely how we should be energy efficient.
Mr. Malpas' speech has been drawn to my attention and I concur with his views on energy conservation, but not on electricity privatisation being a distraction. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Standing Committee that is currently considering the Electricity Bill, so he will know better than I that some of its clauses relate to energy conservation. In no sense is that a distraction.

Renewable Energy Sources

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of electricity generated in the year 2000 he estimates will come from renewable sources of energy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): There is great uncertainty about projections for developing technologies such as renewable sources of energy. By the year 2025, wind and tidal barrages, for example, might provide up to 10 per cent. of curent electricity requirements each, if they could be successfully developed and were found to be environmentally acceptable.

Mr. Fearn: Will the Minister confirm that renewable energy from the Mersey barrage will be included for the north-west? How much energy could come from that source and what progress has been made on the scheme?

Mr. Spicer: Speaking from memory, 0·5 per cent. of electricity could come from the Mersey barrage. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the Mersey barrage would come under the non-fossil fuel obligation, for instance, which we have laid out as part of our electricity supply privatisation.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my hon. Friend agree that 10 per cent. will cut the illusions of those who think renewables can make an immense contribution by the year 2000? Does he agree that, these days, large tranches of power are required not small contributions which often come from environmental developments which can be a disaster?

Mr. Spicer: The Government are doing a tremendous amount to sponsor research into renewable sources of energy. As I have already said, we have produced a scheme—the non-fossil fuel obligation—whereby renewable energy will be given special treatment. As I said in my main answer, it is difficult to predict exactly how these technologies will develop. That is why, in the foreseeable future, we shall be putting great reliance on the variety offered by nuclear energy.

Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister accept that offshore wave power could make substantial contributions to the national grid by the end of the century? Does he further accept that a substantial body of opinion believes that dirty tricks by nuclear interests in his Department may have contributed to the rundown of offshore wave power research? Can he report on the progress of any discussions following the meeting between Baroness Hooper and my constituent, Professor Stephen Salter, earlier this winter?

Mr. Spicer: I categorically refute the dirty tricks allegation. No Government have done more for the promotion, development and research into renewable energy than this Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, all renewable energy sources are reviewed from time to time, and offshore wave power will certainly be reviewed. Large-scale offshore wave power is not one of the sources that we are currently pursuing as hard as the others.

Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that, for all the calls for increased spending on research into renewable energy, if the technology is not there we could spend two or three times as much money on research and still not bring it any quicker? Does he agree, therefore, that for the foreseeable future the only significant alternative to production from fossil fuels is nuclear power?

Mr. Spicer: I agree with that, but I must stress again that we are doing more than any other Government have to explore the potential for renewables and to proceed with them where it appears feasible and commercial to do so.

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received regarding the protection of consumer interests following privatisation of the electricity industry.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I continue to receive a number of representations on this topic. The Electricity Consumers Council has welcomed the proposals in the Electricity Bill for protecting consumers' interests.

Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, despite his smooth words and the sham of competition in the Bill, consumers will still pay dearly for the dogma of privatisation? Why is he not prepared to provide in the Bill for right to supply, not necessarily for credit, to ensure that those living in poverty have a right to heat and light?

Mr. Parkinson: There is an obligation to supply within the Bill and it is a wider obligation than has ever been placed on the industry before. Previously, if one were beyond 50 yards from a distribution point one could be refused supply. That has gone. We are also making it a right for the low-income user of electricity to have a prepayment meter fitted as an alternative to disconnection. At present that is an option, but in future it will be a right. Prepayment meters have been the real reason why there has been such a substantial fall in the rate of disconnections under this Government.

Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the best protection for consumers will be competition in electricity production with the distribution boards shopping around for electricity?

Mr. Parkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend that it will be a more competitive market for the area boards to buy their electricity and the regulator will be under a duty to regulate the prices of transmission, for both high and low-level distribution systems. Our package plus the package of customer rights adds up to a better deal for the consumer than any ever before.

Mr. Blair: Consumers will be concerned about how far they will have to underwrite the Government's insistence on building four new nuclear power stations. Since we know even from the authorised version of Mr. Baker's speech that the newly privatised industry will not build those power stations unless "the terms are right", and since we are told in today's papers that the Government are refusing to concede the industry's demands that any cost overruns are to be underwritten by the taxpayer, what will happen if there is deadlock between the industry and the Government? Is the Secretary of State .prepared to contemplate the four new nuclear power stations not being built, which alone would give his negotiating arm strength, or is this just a public posture to be adopted while the Bill goes through the Commons?

Mr. Parkinson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that Sizewell B is already under construction and will be coming on stream in 1994. An inquiry is being held about


Hinkley Point C and I have just been informed by the Central Electricity Generating Board that it expects to apply for the other two stations within the next few months. Negotiations between the Government and National Power are progressing well. The hon. Gentleman should not believe what he reads in the newspapers any more than what is in the leaked documents that he seems to love using.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that few things are more irritating for a consumer than to be told that a certain service will come on a specified day at 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock, when the consumer waits in and cancels all professional and family engagements and the service does not turn up? Consumers will be delighted that there is to be a consumer right in the matter in future.

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that for the first time consumers will have a statutory right to compensation in the event of failure to meet performance standards.

British Coal

Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he will next meet the chairman of British Coal; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

Mr. Parkinson: I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Barron: At the last meeting, did the Secretary of State discuss the problems lacing ex-miners who took redundancy payments between the ages of 50 and 60? Under the Government's restart scheme a 58-year-old ex-miner who cannot find a job might lose his unemployment benefit equivalent which could be paid by the coal board if it so decided. If the Secretary of State did not discuss that, will he do so now and stop the problems throughout the British coal fields where ex-miners, having spent nearly a lifetime working in coal mines, believe that their five loads of coal and other benefits are under threat?

Mr. Parkinson: I did not discuss that with the chairman of British Coal, but my officials and the Department are having discussions with other Government Departments about the problem. We recognise that the new arrangements have produced new difficulties and we are determined to find a way around them.

Mr. Williams: When the Minister next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he raise with him the future of the west Wales anthracite field? We have lost Cynheidre colliery and there is serious concern about the mothballing of Carway Fawr drift mine. Those jobs are badly needed in the area and there is a problem caused by competition from Chinese anthracite. In the interest of the balance of payments and future supplies of anthracite, we want an early go-ahead for the Carway Fawr project.

Mr. Parkinson: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I am aware of the project and the local concern and of the

shortage of high-grade anthracite reserves in this country. I will bring the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of the chairman of British Coal.

Mr. Andy Stewart: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he congratulate him and the east midlands electricity board on deciding that the first mini power station will be in my constituency at Bilsthorpe? That is an environmentally friendly station and shows our commitment to British Coal. That station is in addition to and not a substitute for the coal-fired West Burton power station.

Mr. Parkinson: I do not wish to dampen my hon. Friend's enthusisam, but I have read about those proposals with interest as well. I know that discussions are taking place between the east midlands electricity board and British Coal, but no proposals have been put to me to date. When they are, I will look at them with great interest.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: When my right hon. Friend next speaks to the chairman of British Coal, will he ask him to think very carefully about the medium and long-term future of Gedling colliery in my constituency which is currently under threat of closure? Is he aware that the colliery has received an enormous amount of recent investment? The paint is hardly dry on a £6 million underground motorway system. The investment has been successful and the pit has seen an enormous increase in productivity and output and has only relatively recently hit severe geological drawbacks. Will he bring all those points to the attention of the chairman of British Coal when he next meets him?

Mr. Parkinson: I know of my hon. Friend's great concern about Gedling and I will bring those points to the chairman's attention.

Mr. Eadie: In the many discussions that the right hon. Gentleman may have with the chairman of British Coal, will he raise the apparent breakdown between the south of Scotland electricity board and British Coal concerning the board's take of coal from the deep mine Scottish coal industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it ridiculous that this matter should continue and have to be resolved by the court, which will be too late in any case because I believe that the south of Scotland electricity board intends to take no more Scottish deep-mined coal after 31 March and that that industry will, therefore, be obliterated?

Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have made my position in this matter clear. I should like to see the two sides reach agreement. Last year, when we appeared to have reached an impasse, the two sides found a way forward, which I earnestly hope they will do again.

Mr. Gow: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the chairman of British Coal and his colleagues are all in favour of his declared policy of privatisation? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that, when that privatisation comes, those working in the coal industry will be given preferential terms so that they can acquire shares in the industry in which they work?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I can confirm that one of our objectives in privatising the industry will be to give each miner a chance to have a stake in the industry in which he works. I confirm that I have conveyed to British Coal the


Government's determination to go ahead with privatisation after the next election. We are working together gradually on plans to that end.

Mr. Patchett: Will the Minister discuss with the chairman of British Coal the number of mines currently going through the review procedure and how many are likely to survive? Is this not in fact a closure programme brought on by the Government's lack of interest in the industry?

Mr. Parkinson: I would claim that we are showing our lack of interest in a rather strange fashion, as we have put up £6 billion for investment since we came to office, and we have approved investment plans for nearly £600 million per year for the next three years. This Government have made more investment in British Coal, have paid more generous redundancy terms to miners, and have a far better record, even in the business of closures, than any Labour Government.

Combined Heat and Power

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment has been made of the potential of combined heat and power following privatisation of the electricity industry.

Mr. Parkinson: A number of published assessments all indicate considerable potential for combined heat and power. Our proposals for privatising the electricity supply industry will for the first time create conditions which will allow combined heat and power schemes to proceed on an equal basis with conventional generation.

Mr. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people believe that there is a tremendous use for reject heat in myriad different projects? It is likely that that would be best exploited by the private sector with its usual greater imagination.

Mr. Parkinson: Yes. The Government have shown their commitment to combined heat and power by funding to date 69 studies and giving approval for a further 92 studies. We believe that there is substantial scope for combined heat and power. We believe that we have laid the way open for it to become a successful competitor in supplying electricity.

Mr. Allen: Will the Secretary of State ensure that any combined heat and power schemes in the Nottinghamshire area are located at the Blidworth, Cotgrave or Gedling pit sites, which are currently under threat? To keep those combined heat and power stations running, will he consider the redundant mineworkers' scheme agreements which, if people are forced back on to restart and not allowed to continue in the scheme, will not be worth the waste paper that they are written on?

Mr. Parkinson: That was a clever, convoluted question, but I am not quite sure where it got us—nor, I believe, is the hon. Gentleman. Combined heat and power schemes will be placed where they are best able to operate efficiently. I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman wanted to hear.

Waste Burning

Mr. Norris: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the potential for generating electricity from waste burning.

Mr. Michael Spicer: There is great uncertainty about projections for renewable sources of energy. We estimate that by the year 2025 up to 4·5 per cent. of current energy requirements might come from biomass if the diverse technologies involved can be successfully developed and applied.

Mr. Norris: Does my hon. Friend agree that as environmental concerns are rightly at the top of the agenda these days, biomass power generation offers two marvellous possibilities—first, the generation of power without recourse to primary fossil fuel extraction and, secondly, an opportunity to dispose of waste in a way infinitely more environmentally desirable than conventional landfill methods? Will my hon. Friend therefore commit the Department to an even more vigorous study of the ways in which biomass power generation can be enhanced?

Mr. Spicer: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We already spend £1·5 million a year on research into biomass and there have been some successful outcomes of that research. I recently visited an example just north of Birmingham, which is planning to produce about 3 MW of electricity from methane.

Mr. Dalyell: On waste burning, could the Minister, whom I have always found helpful in such matters, call for an urgent report on the situation at Polkemmet and Wilsontown where Dixon's pit is suffering from ever-growing subterranean fires, with the result that sulphur emissions are becoming a major environmental problem throughout central Scotland? The Scottish Office is doing its best, but this is an extremely serious situation.

Mr. Spicer: I will, of course, look into the matter and see what lies behind it.

British Nuclear Fuels plc

Mr. Morley: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc; and what matters they discussed.

Mr. Parkinson: I last met Mr. Harding on 23 January when we discussed a range of matters concerning British Nuclear Fuels plc.

Mr. Morley: Will the Secretary of State pass on to the chairman the relief of the people of Humberside that neither the Killingholme site, nor any site on Humberside, was chosen for the particular diposal site? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that British Nuclear Fuels would rather have gone for a site on Teesside instead of the one chosen at Sellafield? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to speculate on why that site was chosen?

Mr. Parkinson: At the moment I hear a lot of rumours about what the Nuclear Industry Radioactivity Waste Executive will say, but it has not yet made its recommendations about the deep site. I do not know where it will recommend for that site and I do not want to add to the speculation, but I look forward to receiving its report.

Mr. Jack: During his discussions with the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels, did my right hon. Friend discuss the economics and feasibility of the proposition for smaller nuclear reactors and the contribution that they may make to our future power supplies?

Mr. Parkinson: I did not discuss that with the chairman, but I have noted with interest the agreement between Rolls-Royce and the Atomic Energy Authority to investigate the possibilities for smaller nuclear generators.

Mr. Salmond: During the discussions did the Secretary of State and the chairman discuss the fierce resistance in Scotland to any prospect of a Scottish site being used as a nuclear dump? Will the Secretary of State tell us what representations he has received against Caithness, in particular, being used as a nuclear dump?

Mr. Parkinson: I have received very few, but I suspect that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has received rather more. I must point out that at present this is a matter not for the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels, but for Nirex. It is the job of Nirex to come forward with recommendations and, when it does, the Government will take a decision.

Renewable Energy Generators

Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received proposing that, after privatisation of electricity, all smaller hydro-electric wind or other renewable energy generators will have the right to supply into the grid as they have at present, and at a price negotiated on a cost plus basis.

Mr. Michael Spicer: There have been a number of informal representations. Purchases by distribution companies of electricity generated from renewable sources such as wind and hydro will contribute to their non-fossil obligation. We shall be setting the obligation to accommodate renewable projects.

Mr. Speller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever the obligation is, it will provide a level playing field for the other non-fossil fuels? Is my hon. Friend aware that the general feeling among those connected with renewable sources of energy is that, as with research money in the past, future obligations will be tilted towards nuclear power and away from the small private generators?

Mr. Spicer: In my first answer to my hon. Friend, I specifically said that the obligation would be set at a level such as to accommodate renewable projects. I hope that that directly answers my hon. Friend's worries about this matter.

Flue Gas Desulphurisation

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the next approvals for flue gas desulphurisation process equipment to be fitted to Central Electricity Generating Board power stations.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I understand that the CEGB and its successors will be making a full contribution towards meeting the United Kingdom's obligation of a 60 per cent. reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions, on 1980 levels, by

the year 2003. My right hon. Friend gave his consent to the Drax application last August and I expect further applications to follow as soon as possible.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister recall the terrible smog problems during the 1940s and 1950s and that the Government decided on a national effort to bring in smokeless fuels? Why can the present Government not show the same enthusiasm to solve the problems of the so-called clean fuel electricity by sorting out the problems of nuclear waste and the acid rain caused by the emissions from power stations? All that they seem to do is to drag their feet and be pushed along by the EC. If they do anything at all it is merely to manipulate the price difference between nuclear and coal produced electricity.

Mr. Spicer: I remember very well that the clean air legislation about which the hon. Gentleman speaks was passed in 1956 under a Conservative Government. I am sure that my hon. Friends also remember that. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to suphur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions. They form one of the reasons why we have signed an agreement under which there will be a 60 per cent. reduction in 1980 levels by 2003. That is why we shall set levels of emission for each of the companies in the private sector. Those levels will be such that the obligations are met and the costs of the emission controls will be spread over all the plants. We are aware of the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentions and we are implementing our obligations in the matter faster than any Government have ever done.

Dr. Michael Clark: When the next round of approvals for flue gas desulphurisation comes about, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that British chemical engineering contractors are keen to undertake this task, not only to provide more work for their work force but further to enhance their reputation abroad so that they may export more and improve the balance of payments to which chemical engineering already contributes substantially?

Mr. Spicer: The placing of orders for equipment will of course, be a matter for the industry, and particularly for firms in the private sector. I am sure that people in the industry will have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways ahead on environmental issues is to continue to fund the experimental stage of the fluidised bed? Does he agree that it would be wrong to lose this simply because a top-up fund is not available and that it should come into commercial use?

Mr. Spicer: I understand that there is some commercial interest in the topping cycle. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the chairman of British Coal and the Department are in touch with each other to see what, if anything, can be done to further this technology.

Sizewell B

Mr. Ground: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of contracts in the Sizewell B development will be placed with British firms; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Parkinson: The placing of contracts is a commercial matter for the CEGB. It advises me that about


90 per cent. by value of the project contracts for the Sizewell B PWR are expected to be placed with firms in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ground: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a very high figure and shows that the benefits of the Sizewell B development will be felt not only in the electricity industry but throughout British industry?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes. The programme for modernising and improving the electricity supply industry—both the generation and the distribution of electricity—will be a source of valuable business for British industry in the years ahead.

Mr. Bill Walker: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the contracts that are going out for the Sizewell B development contain any provision for air monitoring of nuclear fallout? If not, can he explain why measurements in my constituency over the weekend show a fallout of 40 times the Government's levels? There is considerable doubt about whether air monitoring is effective.

Mr. Parkinson: I cannot tell my hon. Friend whether these contracts contain provisions for air monitoring. I shall look into the point that he raises and shall be in touch with him about it.

Piper Alpha Disaster

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the safety recommendations made by the inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster will be fully implemented; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has already informed Parliament that if the public inquiry can recommend improvements to the present safety regime, these will be accepted. I cannot speculate on the findings of the public inquiry.

Mr. Salmond: I thank the Minister for that assurance, but I should like to test its seriousness. Is the Minister aware that the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, the coastguard union, is submitting evidence to the Piper Alpha inquiry to the effect that the Peterhead coastguard station is an essential part of marine safety in the north-east of Scotland, and gives the flexibility to respond to major incidents? Is he aware that the Department of Transport is proposing to close that station, effectively prejudging the results of the inquiry and undermining the assurances that the Minister has just given? Will he undertake to contact the Department of Transport and his colleagues there to argue that any closure decision affecting Peterhead should be postponed until after the Piper Alpha public inquiry, and so validate the assurance that he has given us?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member has reasonably raised an important point. I assure him that I shall have talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on that matter.

Mr. Doran: This morning, I had meetings with the widows and the survivors of the Piper Alpha tragedy, and they raised with me a matter that is of major concern to them, which is the recovery of items from the sea bed. I know that this matter has previously been raised with the Minister in the House, but it is of continuing concern to

these people. Has the Department any plans, or is it its intention, to undertake an internal investigation into the costs of raising the equipment that lies on the sea bed, and which will provide vital evidence for the inquiry in Aberdeen, and perhaps lead to the recovery of more bodies?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend gave consent to the abandonment of the platform. The toppling has not taken place, and it would be premature to make any judgment until we have seen how the platform topples, albeit that the purpose of the toppling is that it should fall out from the debris so as to enable investigators to look at the debris in more safety. At this stage, I cannot give any undertaking in reply to his question, but I note what he says.

West Burton Power Station

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received recently concerning the proposed West Burton coal-fired power station; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My Department has received nearly 30 representations about West Burton B from organisations and individual members of the public. I understand that discussions are continuing between the relevant local planning authorities and the CEGB about some matters concerning the proposed construction of the station. My officials have urged them to resolve the outstanding matters as soon as possible so that my right hon. Friend can proceed with his consideration of the CEGB's application.

Mr. Haynes: That Minister there will realise that something was said on the Floor of the House about having a coal-fired power station in Nottinghamshire at West Burton, but when we got upstairs in Committee, the Secretary of State, dodging his responsibilities, went in a different direction. I want a straight answer to a straight question. Are we going to have that station at West Burton, yes or no?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is obviously on form today. The straight answer to him is that my right hon. Friend, when he receives an application, has a quasi-judicial role in determining first whether there should be an inquiry and secondly what the decision should be. We have to wait for the CEGB or its successors to come up with an application.
In the case of West Burton, of the 43 conditions between local authorities and the CEGB, only one remains outstanding. We hope that these matters will be resolved so that we can determine the outcome of the application.

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you read Hansard of the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill, you will see that he promised—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise this on an Adjournment debate, it would be a different matter.

Energy Efficiency Office

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the current remit of the Energy Efficiency Office.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: The Energy Efficiency Office promotes efficiency in the use of energy in buildings and industrial processes, by tackling market barriers and stimulating the market where it is slow to react.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister explain how cutting the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office by almost half fits in with the statement by the Prime Minister to the Royal Society that energy conservation is crucial to tackling the greenhouse effect?

Mr. Parkinson: The Government have decided to stop funding demonstration projects, because we already have enough, stop subsidising surveys, because hundreds of them have been done, stop general advertising and start to focus its budget much more on specific groups and areas and on spreading best practice. There is no conflict between the news that we are cutting expenditure in certain areas and the fact that we are still seriously promoting energy efficiency.

Mr. Rost: Will the Energy Efficiency Office organise the programme that my right hon. Friend recently announced for setting a good example in the public sector with cost-effective energy efficiency investment?

Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend points out, the public sector is a major spender. A programme was inaugurated two years ago. It needs a further substantial boost, which it will receive in the weeks and months ahead, and the plans are currently being drawn up.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Church House

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what has been the level of abortive expenditure at the Millbank offices consequent upon the decision of the synod not to vacate Church house.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): As a result of the decision of the general synod, the works at Millbank, which were well advanced at this time and which were specially designed to meet the needs of the general synod, have had to be replanned to make the space suitable for letting commercially. The cost of the abortive works involved will, on the present professional advice, be around £1·25 million.

Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend advise the House of the cost to the general synod of this decision? Does he agree that this rather expensive decision reflects a strange order of priorities? Would not the general synod be advised to consider the use of the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre?

Mr. Alison: The general synod will, in addition, have to pass on to the dioceses of the Church of England an annual bill of about £¾ million to pay a new rent liability at Church house which would have been offset if it had moved to Millbank. That is the equivalent cost of maintaining about 25 parish churches in action for a year. Against that background, I am convinced that the general synod reached an unwise decision, at least on cost-benefit grounds. The availability of the Queen Elizabeth II

conference centre would certainly have been one of the genuine and acceptable options available, if it had moved to Millbank.

Mr. Gow: What injury would be done to Church or state if the general synod ceased to exist?

Mr. Alison: So far as the state is concerned, we have a neutral view of the existence and prospects for the general synod. If the link between Church and state were severed, it would be entirely up to the Church of England to determine whether it were well served by the continuation of the general synod at Westminster.

Clergymen

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergymen were dismissed for failing to work hard enough in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: This is not a matter for the commissioners. However, I understand that no central records are kept of the reasons for clergy leaving their posts.

Mr. Greenway: Bearing in mind that my right hon. Friend and those whom he represents are responsible for the pay of bishops and clergy, is he satisfied that all bishops and clergy are working hard enough on legitimate matters? Will he bear in mind the recent harbouring of an illegal immigrant by a clergyman and agree that any member of the clergy or bishop who emulates that.example of encouraging illegality should not remain in his post?

Mr. Alison: I note my hon. Friend's comments. I am quite sure that all Anglican clergy, indeed all Anglican diocesan bishops, will want to heed the advice given by the two archbishops that they should not aid or abet any individual or group who seeks to break the law.

Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside how it can be decided whether clergymen are working hard enough, would not a clergyman looking into the Chamber now and finding fewer than 50 hon. Members—five of them Ministers and three PPSs—present out of 650 conclude that we are not in a position to give lectures on the subject?

Mr. Alison: There may be very few people in the House at any one time, but very hard-working clergymen often find that there are very few parishioners in the pews. I do not think that that reflects on the amount of time and effort that a clergyman puts into preparing his sermon, or that Ministers put into replying to a thin House.

Administrative Offices

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the provision of administrative offices by the Church authorities.

Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners and the general synod will, for the foreseeable future, remain in their present office premises. The Church of England pensions board will be joining the Church Commissioners at their Millbank location in May this year.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Church Commissioners that instead of shuffling about in


expensive west end offices they should show real faith in the inner cities by selling both Church house and Millbank for over £50 million, and investing the proceeds in a move to an area of high unemployment such as my constituency?

Mr. Alison: The trouble is that if we took that line we could have as many as 650 parliamentary colleagues bidding for the relocation of the Church Commissioners' premises. It might be more politic for us to remain where we are.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Audit Office

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how much money has been expended by the National Audit Office on audit of the books and records of (a) the banana trade advisory committee, (b) the Black Country limestone advisory panel, (c) Government hospitality fund advisory committee for the purchase of wine, (d) the Marshall aid commemoration commission, (e) Red Sea Lights Company Ltd., (f) persons hearing estate agents appeals and (g) the wine standards board of the Vintners Company, over the most recent period for which figures are available.

Sir Peter Hordern (The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): Although the Commission is responsible under the National Audit Act for considering the estimates of the National Audit Office submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the cost of particular audits that he carries out under his statutory duties is a matter for him. However, he has informed me that, of the bodies mentioned in my hon. Friend's question, he audits only the accounts of the Marshall aid commemoration commission. The cost of the audit of the 1986–87 account was £1,600.

Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend not find it extraordinary that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be responsible for the auditing of such minor bodies, particularly the Marshall aid commemoration commission? Would it not be better if he were left, on behalf of Parliament, to concentrate on the really large audits, and private firms of auditors were responsible for such quangos?

Sir Peter Hordern: There is much in what my hon. Friend says. Of the bodies that he mentioned, however, only one is audited by the National Audit Office, and in that instance the full cost of the audit was recovered from the Marshall aid commemoration commission.

Commission Meetings

Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what topics were discussed.

Sir Peter Hordern: The Commission last met on Tuesday 6 December, when the main business was consideration of proposed estimates for 1989–90 for both the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Audit Office.

Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the potential deterioration in staffing levels in the Northern Ireland Audit Office? Will he undertake to write to the Comptroller and Auditor-General asking him to assess the staffing level statistics, and will he ask whether people who leave are interviewed to discover why they are leaving and whether those who return are interviewed to discover whether the career pattern in the office is sufficient to retain them in the long term?

Sir Peter Hordern: I will certainly write to the Comptroller and Auditor-General as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I should say that although there was indeed a staffing problem in the Northern Ireland Audit Office some time ago, the position has improved. When the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and I visited the office, along with one or two other hon. Members, we were told that there had been a distinct improvement in recruiting, which we hope will continue.

Mr. Gow: Have my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) considered the remuneration of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland? If so, what conclusion has been reached?

Sir Peter Hordern: I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that although we have indeed considered the remuneration of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General and have made a proposal, it has, alas, fallen on deaf ears within the Government. We shall have to return to the matter in due course.

National Audit Office

Mr. Favell: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission whether the Public Accounts Commission has recently discussed the cost implications of moving the headquarters of the National Audit Office to the north of England.

Sir Peter Hordern: As I told my hon. Friend on 23 May last year, the costs of the London headquarters buildings have been carefully considered in the past, both by the Committee of Public Accounts and the Commission. The National Audit Office employs 20 per cent. of its staff outside London. There, have, however, been no recent changes in the location of Government Departments. The principal work of the National Audit Office remains at the London offices of the Government Departments and other bodies it is required to audit.

Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the drive from many Ministers to relocate in the north and with the expense of employing clerical labour in London, growing, it is time for the National Audit Office to up anchor and leave its office in Victoria?

Sir Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend's case would be a good one if it were not for the fact that so many Government Departments are still in London. The National Audit Office has to audit the London offices of the Government Departments. As, when and if Government offices are located in different parts of the country, there will be a good case for the National Audit Office to do likewise.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

House Passes

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about the number of passes to the House currently in issue.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): On 19 January 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, a total of 9,976 photo-identity passes, giving access to all or part of the Palace of Westminster, were in issue.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the large number of passes currently in issue, it would be feasible to issue 70 or so passes so that all Members of the European Parliament, who are not currently eligible for a pass, could receive one, which would improve co-operation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not anticipate the debate that will take place tonight.

Mr. Wakeham: As you rightly say, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend raised a matter that, if you should select a certain amendment, will be right for debate this evening. As my hon. Friend knows, I have considerable sympathy for the point he makes.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House tell us how many of the 9,000-plus passes are category 30 passes for lobbyists? Does he take the view—this is not dealt with in the report—that their number should be reduced?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not want to anticipate tonight's debate, but lobbyists are partly dealt with in the report and we had best wait for the relevant debate.

House of Commons Kiosk

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what were the takings of the House of Commons kiosk in (a) the four weeks up to Christmas 1988 and (b) the 12 months up to Christmas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: Kiosk takings for the four-weeks period to Christmas 1988 amounted to £193,249·69 and the figure for the 12-month period to Christmas was £588,007·41. Both amounts include VAT.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate all concerned on those remarkable figures? Will he accept that most items sold at the kiosk are of a fattening nature and add to the weight of hon. Members, making many, including myself, overweight? A good use of the profits would be to build a swimming pool within the precincts of Parliament to enable hon. Members to help reduce their weight.

Mr. Wakeham: I usually agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, but if he is overweight there are ways of reducing weight other than our building a swimming pool. He would have to take up the building of a pool with the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House dispel rumours that are going round that the kiosk is being

fattened up for privatisation? If there are profits to be made, will the Government look more kindly, not towards providing swimming pools and all the rest, but to giving the profits to the staff who work in the kiosk and elsewhere?

Mr. Wakeham: What is done with the profits is a matter not for me but for the House of Commons Commission. The profits of the Catering Department are substantially used to assist with capital projects and to improve the services of the House. I note the hon. Gentleman's point.

General Medical Council

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he next expects to meet the chairman of the General Medical Council; and what items he expects to discuss.

Mr. Wakeham: I have no plans for such a meeting and, therefore, the second part of the question does lot arise.

Q.58 Mr. Spearing: If the Lord President does see the chairman of the GMC, will he draw his attention to statutory instrument No. 2255/88, which the Council of which the right hon. Gentleman is President has recently issued on the new rules—the first for eight years—of the preliminary proceedings committee and professional conduct committee of the GMC? Will he tell the chairman that there is considerable concern on both sides of the House, for good reason, about the proceedings of both the committees? Given that fact, does he think that it would be appropriate that any prayer against the statutory instrument should be debated on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to those whose concern they are. I remind him and the House, however, that the responsibility of the Lord President and the Privy Council is limited to approving, with or without modification, disciplinary procedures that are proposed by the GMC. New rules were approved on 21 December, and the Privy Council has no standing until such rules are made and submitted to it. The rules are currently being examined by a working party that was established by the GMC. The report of that working party will serve as a proper basis for discussion when it is available.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a tragic case that occurred in my constituency brought to my attention a number of cases of great concern and suffering throughout the country over the disciplinary arrangements for doctors? Will he convey that information to the chairman of the GMC when he next sees him? Is he aware that I would support the call for a debate on this important subject? The doctors cannot have it all their own way.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern, and I know the case to which he refers. I shall refer his comments to the GMC. I must repeat that my task, and that of the Privy Council, is limited to considering the rules that it puts before us.
Mr. Dobson Will the Lord President arrange to meet the chairman of the GMC urgently to express to him the abhorrence that is felt throughout the country at the idea of buying and selling human organs? Will he say that even under this Government there are limits to the introduction


of commercialisation into medicine? Will he remind him and those who are proposing the implementation of the idea that at least Burke and Hare, the body snatchers, waited until people were dead?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is being less than his usual fair self. He knows well that I do not have any responsibility in these matters. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has responsibility, and action has already been taken, including the calling for reports. The health authority is already examining the matter

Scottish Affairs Committee

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what further discussions he intends to have on the setting up of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Mr. Wakeham: I shall give the hon. Member the answer that I would have given to the hon. Members for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) had they been present in the Chamber.
I refer the hon. Member to what I said on 19 January during business questions in reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I am not very hopeful about this matter, at least not in the immediate future, but I am having a meeting shortly with some of his hon. Friends to discuss the position and to see whether there is any scope for progress.

Mr. Foulkes: I am most grateful to the Lord President. I shall pass on his answer. Does he agree with me, however, that it is extremely regrettable that a Committee of this place that should be set up has not been, and that the Scottish Office is the only Department of state that does not receive the scrutiny of a Select Committee? This is all because of what appears until now to have been the reluctance of the limited number of Scottish Conservative

Back Benchers to serve on the Committee. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been reports that in certain circumstances Scottish Conservative Back Benchers would now be willing to serve on such a Committee? In the light of that, will he renew and intensify his discussions with all parties concerned to ensure that the Committee becomes active and involved as quickly as possible?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Scottish Office is still subject to a fair amount of scrutiny by various Select Committees. I accept that that is not as good as a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and I regret as much as the hon. Gentleman does the fact that we were unable to set one up. But I understand the reasons for that, and I and the House have accepted those reasons.
As I told the hon. Gentleman—I am not sure whether he is encouraging or discouraging me—I propose next to talk to two of his senior colleagues who have some proposals to put to me. I believe that that is the sensible thing to do. I shall try to keep the atmosphere calm—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, too—and we shall see whether there is a basis for proceeding.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is time for thinking through the problem and understanding the difficulties that the Committee of Selection had? The Committee of Selection reflected, properly, the facts as they were. What is important is how we arrived at that position. We cannot find a solution to the problem until we examine carefully how the House arrived at that position. More important, it must be seen in the light of all the activities of the House as they affect the unitary Parliament and the Union.

Mr. Wakeham: As is often the case, my hon. Friend has made a wise contribution to this discussion. I shall reflect on all those points.

Wandsworth Prison

Mr. Roy Hattersley: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the dispute at Wandsworth Prison.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): At 7.30 am yesterday about 100 uniformed staff at Her Majesty's prison Wandsworth went on strike. Fourteen uniformed staff worked normally. At about 9.30 am, under contingency plans, 60 staff in managerial grades from around the prison service were deployed in Wandsworth to maintain order and prison routines. There were inevitable delays and arrangements could not be made for prisoners to take exercise, but meals were served and visits took place normally.
This morning, at 7 o'clock, 197 police officers went into Wandsworth to assist the governor and to work alongside prison staff. During the normal working week many more staff are needed than for the Sunday routine. Although 34 uniformed prison staff are working normally today, peace and order could not have been maintained in the prison without the use of police officers.
Naturally these events led to heightened tension in the prison and there have been one or two incidents, but loyal prison staff and the police have managed to keep the prison running as near normally as possible.
Since last November prison officers at Wandsworth have been refusing to take a full number of prisoners. As a result, about 50 prisoners have had to be kept unnecessarily in police cells. Talks at national, regional and local levels have taken place over many months in an effort to resolve the dispute. The new working systems introduced yesterday are intended to make more effective use of staff resources and contain no unusual or threatening features. The action of the POA branch at Wandsworth in going on strike is completely unjustified. I call on the officers to go back to work under the governor's authority forthwith.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm that the action taken this morning by the new governor at Wandsworth prison has imperilled industrial relations throughout the prison service? Does he realise that his statement shows no recognition of the fact that the Prison Officers Association has now suspended the ballot on the fresh start agreement, acceptance of which it had previously recommended? How does he justify an action in a single prison that jeopardises the era of peace within the entire prison service which the Home Secretary claimed to be absolutely necessary for the service's success?
Secondly, will the Under-Secretary of State confirm, putting aside the bogus figures that he has already offered the House, that Wandsworth has an official complement of 1,259 prisoners, but that yesterday 1,505 prisoners were held there? Is not the insistence on 50 additional prisoners on top of the normal complement wholly unreasonable in terms of good management of the service?
Thirdly, what is the Minister's comment on the attitude of the Police Federation, which described the use of 197 of its members as a wholly disastrous decision by the Government, since its members are neither equipped nor prepared to act as prison officers?
Finally, does the Under-Secretary recall that, in December, the Home Secretary boasted that prisoners were no longer being held in police cells in London? That fact held good for a single day—the day on which he made the boast. Does that not provide the most vivid illustration of the causes of the crisis in the prison service? As is so often the case, the Home Secretary is more interested in the illusion of action than in genuine reform.

Mr. Hogg: As is usually the case, the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) have not added to his reputation.
The facts are as follows. In October last year, there was an agreement between the prison officers at Wandsworth and the Home Office whereby the Home Office agreed to a manpower review in return for the prison officers agreeing to admit 1,555 prisoners. The Home Office delivered its part of the bargain and the manpower team went in.
On 11 November 1988, the prison officers went back on their part of the deal and imposed the limit of 1,505 prisoners in the prison. The manpower review was delivered on 22 November, with the date of the implementation of the new shift being 15 January 1989. Thereafter, there were considerable negotiations We put back the implementation date by two weeks to allow for further discussions.
On 26 January 1989, there was a further meeting at a senior level where we offered to put back the implementation of the new shift by a further two weeks in return for the prison officers agreeing to admit 1,555 prisoners—as they had agreed to do in October. That proposal was not attractive to the prison officers and they therefore declined.
It is no good the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook grumbling about the number of people in police cells and then grumbling when we take action to reduce the pressure on police cells. That does him no credit.

Mr. John Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem in Wandsworth and elsewhere in the prison system has continued for some time, notwithstanding the fact that prison officers are extremely well paid and have excellent conditions of service? Will my hon. Friend continue with the policy of negotiation to find a solution? Nevertheless, does he agree that it will eventually be necessary to de-unionise a service of the Crown?

Mr. Hogg: We certainly intend to stand behind the governor in his attempts to ensure that Wandsworth prison operates as efficiently and effectively as possible. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I suspect that most prison officers in other prisons will be extremely unhappy about what is happening in Wandsworth, because they are doing exactly what we are asking the prison officers at Wandsworth to do—neither more nor less.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, although the crisis has arisen in part because of the Government's policy on prisons and the overcrowding there, the prison officers' action seems highly irresponsible and that it is quite unacceptable for prison officers to stand at the gates of a prison jeering at the police as they seek to maintain order in a prison where order is close to breaking down? Does he


also agree that the pressure on the Prison Officers Association to take action from a handful of extremists in Wandsworth is also unacceptable? I hope that the Government will not accept the argument of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that if the fresh start initiative is in peril it is entirely because of the Government.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. It is wrong that a disciplined, uniformed service of the Crown should behave in such a way. Prison officers throughout the country will be ashamed of what is happening in Wandsworth. I and, I suspect, other prison officers throughout the country call on the prison officers at Wandsworth to stop the dispute and to go back to work.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on completely changing his policy once again? Will he confirm that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the last Labour Government who brought in the troops to stop the firemen's strike, which makes his complaints about strike breaking sick and hypocritical?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely clearly. There is the further criticism that I have already made—it is no good the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook criticising us for the numbers held in police cells and complaining again when we take action to reduce the numbers. That ambivalent attitude is unworthy of him.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Given the situation that has arisen—I understand the problems that arise in prisons—what is the best thing to do now to bring the two sides together and end the dispute other than telling people to give in?

Mr. Hogg: I am glad to be able to tell the House that tomorrow afternoon, at the request of members of the national executive council of the Prison Officers Association, there will be a meeting between them and senior management at the Home Office. However, the Home Office is standing firmly behind the governor in his determination to manage the prison effectively and efficiently. I call upon the officers at Wandsworth to stop the action, which is highly damaging to the prison and to their reputations.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the action taken by the governor at Wandsworth has been taken only after protracted negotiations with the warders at Wandsworth? Will he also confirm that, at one stage, the implementation of the rota system was postponed for two weeks so that agreement could be reached between the prison officers and the governor of the prison?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is wholly right. The implementation date was originally fixed for 15 January but was postponed to allow for further discussion. At the end of last week, we made a further offer that, if the officers accepted 1,555 prisoners, which is what they agreed to in October, we would put back the implementation for a further two weeks. I am afraid that the prison officers felt unable to accept that generous suggestion.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must know—if he does not, he should not be in his job—that this situation is not applicable just to Wandsworth and that overcrowding has been a problem in the prison service for many years for both prison officers and inmates. Is it not clear that we should look at the problem rather than call people names and suggest that they are stupid or silly because they have taken action?
The hon. Gentleman has helped the position somewhat by saying that the Home Office is prepared to meet the national executive of the Prison Officers Asociation, but why did he not say that from the beginning? The answer is to talk to the Prison Officers Association, not call people names. There are real problems in the service.

Mr. Hogg: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not do his homework before getting to his feet. Yes, we do have a problem with overcrowding, which is precisely why we are creating 25,000 new places by the mid-1990s, as contrasted with 1979. That is a remarkable achievement. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the dispute at Wandsworth is common to the rest of the prison service is nonsense because what is happening at Wandsworth is peculiar to Wandsworth. The officers at Wandsworth are being asked to do no more than that which is being done by most of their colleagues in other prisons.

Mr. Robert Key: No one doubts the skill and professionalism of the vast majority of prison warders, nor does anyone misunderstand the frustration of the police officers upon whose shoulders has fallen the task of looking after prisoners in police cells when they should never be there. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although it is time to talk and to listen, it is also time to be tough when it comes to coping with the tiny minority of warders who have held the rest of the prison service to ransom, which is inexcusable at a time when the Government are having some success in cutting crime rates?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is wholly right to imply that it is the business of a Government to back a governor who is doing his job properly and efficiently. We are in the business of doing that, and we propose to do just that.

Mr. Martin Flannery: It is sad that the mentality behind this problem is such that one hon. Member used the old-fashioned word "warders". In his eagerness to condemn my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the Minister will not admit that anything is wrong, he did not mention that there would be a meeting. There is a crisis in all our prisons, not just in Wandsworth. I am a member of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. For nine years, that Committee has been releasing reports on prison education. Prison education has been cut to the bone and nothing is ever done about it, even though prisoners are asking for education facilities. The Conservative mentality does not want to solve the problem because it costs money to do so. The Government will not admit that prisons are overcrowded and that the crisis is endemic.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing the point that I have made about him in the past—he does not know what he is talking about. The plain fact is that the prisons are not in crisis and things are much better than they were. I have already made the point that, by the mid-1990s, we will have created about 25,000 new places, which will


substantially reduce overcrowding. We have introduced fresh start, which has enormously enhanced the position of prison officers. I am glad to say that we are working most effectively on enhancing regimes. Conditions in prison are substantially improving.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will my hon. Friend stand firm on the matter? To people such as myself who have made professional visits to gaols over the past 25 years, it is quite obvious that many officers are as bloody-minded as the people whom they guard and that their rigid working practices have made prisons more miserable than they need to be. Many inmates are kept in their cells 23 hours a day. They are kept behind closed doors because of the closed minds of those who guard them.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has robustly put his point. In October last year, prison officers at Wandsworth agreed to admit 1,555 prisoners. I wish that they would now do what they promised to do three or four months ago.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When Government representatives meet prison officers' trade union representatives over beer and sandwiches, whenever they meet, reverting to the question put by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), will the Minister tell them that there is no question of de-unionising those who work in the prisons and that there will be no GCHQ? If he does not do so, the situation will be even further inflamed.
Will the hon. Gentleman express the view that there is nothing wrong with people in a trade union fighting for better wages and conditions, especially when the number of people they have to look after has increased so rapidly during the past 10 years? A trade union is set up to protect that right. As a lawyer, the hon. Gentleman should know that, especially just now.

Mr. Hogg: I rather fancy that the meeting tomorrow afternoon will be primarily spent in going over the

agreement that was made in October last year. I fancy also that the officials who meet the POA representatives will say, "Look, in October of last year, and in return for a manpower review which you have now had, you agreed to admit 1,555 prisoners. The time has come to deliver your part of the agreement."

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is it not true that important work and education programmes for prisoners have been disrupted by the dispute? In the discussions that my hon. Friend is about to have, will every effort be made to ensure that the promised work and education programmes for prisoners are delivered by prison officers and all others who are responsible?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend's remarks are important, but it is even more important to get prison officers to deliver the agreement that they made last October.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is not the real crisis in our prisons the one that the Minister consistently refuses to address, which is that we imprison more people and for longer periods than any other country in western Europe? Is that not the root cause of the problem with the Prison Officers Association and others? If the Minister would address that matter, he could forget panics about prison building and endless industrial debates, and deal with the need for a lower prison population. It would be better for everyone if he were to do that.

Mr. Hogg: We are most certainly tackling the problem of overcrowding, in part by the building programme which I have outlined and in part by encouraging courts to seek non-custodial options. In these matters the hon. Gentleman would do well, as would his right hon. and hon. Friends, to assert that it would be right for prison officers to respect the instructions of the governor because prisons cannot be run unless governors' instructions are complied with.

Points of Order

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during business questions on Thursday and subsequently on a point of order questions were asked about a statement on the London rail study. If the London rail study alone was published and the matter concerned a range of options, one could understand that it was not a statement of Government policy. However, two documents were published: "Transport in London" and a central London rail study. A third document called "Statement of Transport in London" was also published, section 6 of which deals with strategy and investment, so it is a statement of Government policy. It was not sent to hon. Members, at least not in the envelope that I received, although it was available in the Vote Office and the Library.
When the Government make a decision to apply to you, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement of policy or when other ways in which the matter could be raised are considered, will you take into account in particular whether it is a statement of options only or a matter of policy? As I understand it, this was a matter of policy and perhaps the Government or other people were not aware of that choice at that time. All I am asking you to do, Mr. Speaker, is to look into the circumstances surrounding these decisions so that in future matters on London, which has more Members of Parliament than Scotland, are the subject of statements on the Floor of the House on the appropriate occasion.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has just asked about statements by Ministers. Labour Members are always complaining that Ministers do not make statements when they should do so. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has issued a White Paper on the National Health Service which he claims is Government policy, should he not be here to answer questions from us?

Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your quarter of a century of distinguished service in this House you must have witnessed many great occasions when this House became the focus of the nation's affairs. Indeed, when you became Speaker I suspected that you would want to preserve that tradition because democracy means little if we are not given the chance to hear first. Government proposes, this House disposes. Will you please protect not just Back Benchers, but this House from an Opposition who are so irresponsible that they handle—I use that word in its criminal sense—stolen documents and prevent this House from becoming the first place to discuss such matters?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who has been concerned on many occasions with attempts at kidney legislation, I wonder whether you have received a request from the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on legislation that

may be urgently required in the light of the decision, much publicised by a journalist, about the commercial sale or otherwise of kidneys. Has the Secretary of State for Health given any sign that he proposes to make a statement on this matter to the House?

Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with all the points of order together. I missed the point last Thursday that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was making. I think that it arises from the answer to a written question. I shall certainly bear in mind what he has said in so far as it is within my responsibility.
The other matters are patently not for me. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] I am not responsible for what hon. Members say in the House, provided that they are in order. Whether it is right to make use of documents which have been leaked is a serious matter, but it is not one for the Chair.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are on very safe ground in respect of that very narrow issue. All these leaks began during the Westland affair when Ministers were leaking documents to each other. You were wise enough on that occasion, Mr. Speaker, to keep your nose out. I do not know how the document reached my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), but the chances are that the precedent was being followed and we will have to get that precedent in "Erskine May".

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, as a chairman himself, has given me some good advice. I shall keep my nose out of it!

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,

That the Report [26 January] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:

That—
(1) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be new Clauses; new Schedules; Admendments to Clause No. 1, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 2 to 4, Schedule No. 2, Clauses Nos. 5 to 13, Schedule No. 4, Clause No. 14, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 15 and 16, Schedules Nos. 5 and 6, Clause No. 17, Schedule No. 7, Clauses Nos. 18 to 28 and Schedules Nos. 8 and 9;
(2) on the allotted day which, under the Order of 23 January, is to be given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading those proceedings shall, subject to the provisions of that Order, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the table set out below.

Table


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


New Clauses, New Schedules, and Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 14
7 pm


Remaining Amendments
9 pm


Third Reading
10 pm

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill

[Allotted Day]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Part II

Exclusion Orders

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 3, line 22, leave out Part II.
The Opposition believe that this amendment goes to the heart of the criticisms of the Bill which has been examined in great detail in Committee upstairs. There is nothing more repellent to Opposition Members, or to many people in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, than the exclusion order. The whole thrust of this amendment is to remove the exclusion power.
If we were to stop most people in the United Kingdom and asked them what the Government's exclusion power in this Bill means, they would not know. They could not give a very articulate response. It is only to be expected that the lay person would not know what an exclusion order meant because such an order falls on only a very small number of United Kingdom citizens. However, those citizens are affected in a quite amazing way.
Few people in this country realise that there is a power under the law of this land which means that a citizen can be excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland or from Northern Ireland to the mainland and, under the law, those people cannot discover the reasons or the evidence against them for the imposition of the order. Under that order, a citizen has no right of appeal and cannot question the order. It cannot be questioned in the courts; it is all-embracing and cannot be challenged.
In these days of glasnost, we are witnessing changes in the Soviet Union which we all welcome. There are also real changes in attitude in the Soviet Union towards political prisoners and civil liberties. We hope that those changes will continue. However, the kind of power that the exclusion order represents is more familiar to eastern European countries. It is more like the medieval powers used by monarchs to exclude powerful barons who were a threat to the throne.
The exclusion order is a formidable power to exclude and exile citizens of this country to one part of the country. We object very strongly to the order because it is probably the most disgraceful and villainous part of the Bill. It infringes all civil liberties and rights to live under the law for which British people fought over many generations. We are not the only ones who believe that exclusion orders are wicked and should be abolished; a string of eminent authorities are in agreement with us. There is no doubt that this exclusion power was introduced by my party when it was in Government, but we say that, 14 years on from its introduction, it is high time that it was taken away. I say that because I am sure that the Government will say, "But you introduced it. This is a draconian power, but it is yours."
Although the power, when introduced, may have been necessary at that time—the Birmingham pub bombings created a climate in which perhaps draconian measures could be understood—14 years on, the Labour party has learnt a great deal about the terrorist and his mind. We believe firmly and fundamentally that this power should not be used by any Government in a civilised society. We have changed our mind. It is a healthy sign when a party can change its mind because of changing circumstances.
It is not just the Labour party which has changed its mind. Eminent authorities have been asked by successive Governments to study the exclusion power and to assess the working of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Given the number of exclusion orders, all the problems and a fair assessment of the overall working of the Bill, those independent reviewers—I confess that they have not said, "Let us scrap the Prevention of Terrorism Act—have increasingly said that the Prevention of Terrorism Act does not need this section. Lord Jellicoe, in 1983, spoke ambivalently about this section and came down in favour of recommending keeping the exclusion order power, although he was not happy about it. Sir Cyril Phillips, in 1985, in an independent Government assessment, recommended that exclusion orders should go. Perhaps the most powerful and recent voice is that of Lord Colville. In both his assessments of the overall working of this legislation, he recommended that exclusion orders should no longer be part of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
When one reads the Colville report and considers the hard work and detail put into it, one is impressed, even if one does not agree with every section of it. It was disclosed in Committee that, rather than having some vast bureaucracy helping Lord Colville in his investigation, he had a tiny staff. Lord Colville took the task of assessing the legislation seriously. The Opposition do not agree with some parts of his assessment, but there were many points with which we do agree. Even where we disagree, we believe that the assessment was fair, given the criteria on which he was asked to make it.
Lord Colville pointed to a number of aspects introduced by the exclusion order. I should like to go through those aspects so that the House can be clear about how draconian this legislation is. First, exclusion orders deprive certain people of the right to move freely around the United Kingdom—in other words, to live where they please. That is why I have described it as a draconian power and one which runs against the civil liberties with which we are familiar.
Whether this power affects only a small number of people is not the point at issue. What Conservative Members often do not understand is that when civil liberties need most to be defended is not in the crystal clear case of right or wrong, but in the marginal case. People who care deeply about civil liberties will take up a case not because they feel it is the best in the world, but because the essence of fighting for civil liberties is to take up a marginal case. If we consider the history of academic freedom and immigration law, we know that it has often been the marginal case that has been used as the test case to show where the parameters of civil liberties must be drawn. That applies to the broader conception of the exclusion power.
The exclusion power does not apply to a large number of people each year. Eighty-three orders were enforced in 1976; 99 in 1977; 150 in 1978; 196 in 1979; and 241 in 1980. In 1982, 248 orders were enforced, the most there have


ever been. In the last period, it was down to 106 orders. The number of exclusion orders could be dismissed as affecting an insignificant number of citizens.
The case that we make, in Committee and today, is that it does not matter about the number. What is important is what the power does to civil liberties and individual rights. In Committee the power as it affects the citizen was described as almost Kafkaesque. I believe that what was meant by that expression was that it was intolerable. How redolent of a novel of Kafka is a situation in which a citizen cannot find out the charges against him, who has given information against him or why the decision has been made. He cannot challenge the decision in any court, but his or her life can be ruined by it.
The Minister may say that it used to have no time limit, but it now has a limit of three years. We would say that three years in a career, in a job, in a marriage or in separation from one's family—one's wife and one's children—is a long time. It can become a life sentence if the job is lost, the career ruined, the family split up or the marriage destroyed. Sadly, there have been cases in which that sequence of events has been recorded.
Exclusion orders represent an Executive power of such force that it belongs to an authoritarian regime and is unlike anything in the British tradition of parliamentary democracy. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have admitted that the Bill is draconian, but the orders represent the most draconian power to be exercised by the state. They are unacceptable to all true democrats and champions of civil liberty.
The Bill, as drafted, is similar to previous prevention of terrorism legislation. It is argued that, if the exclusion orders add to the propaganda effort of the Government, they can be excused. In other words, a certain number of people become subject to the exclusion orders to justify that power.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, as I did in Committee. He appears to oppose exclusion orders on principle. Therefore, why did the Labour Government of 1974–79 include exclusion orders in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 if the Labour party opposes them as a matter of principle?

Mr. Sheerman: I have already dealt fully with that matter. We have acknowledged that the introduction of the power, in very different circumstances from today and shortly after the Birmingham pub bombings, was understandable. That does not mean that, on mature reflection, we believe that we were right. We believe that we were wrong and thank goodness there are political parties in this country that are able to say that they do not have a divine right to believe that they are always correct. A good historian will understand why we got it wrong. The introduction of the power was wrong, and we regret it.
It appears that the existence of the exclusion power is the main reason why the British Government have not signed the fourth protocol to the European convention on human rights. Article 2(1) of the protocol states:
Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence
That the fourth protocol has not been signed by the Government is a sad comment on our country. If part II

of the Bill was deleted, we could sign the protocol, which would bring us more into line with the thinking of our European neighbours.
Exclusion orders can divide families and make it difficult for people to get jobs. They also make it difficult for people to get away from former terrorist associates. We believe that there is nothing more effective than enabling those who have become enmeshed in the tentacles of terrorist organisations to make a clean break. However, exclusion orders do not make clean breaks possible.
The restrictionns are feasible only because of the existence of the Irish sea. If terrorism existed in Scotland, Wales or any other part of Great Britain, exclusion orders would be unworkable. To treat other parts of the United Kingdom as separate and distinct from Northern Ireland is an insult to its people. If they are a part of the United Kingdom, they should not be treated differently. Exclusion orders create a distinction, and that is unacceptable.
4.15 pm
Another fundamental objection to exclusion orders is that they cannot be used against a naturalised or British-born citizen from another country who becomes involved in terrorism in Britain. What an anomaly. We all know what happens when a terrorist is excluded to Ireland. It is not a fanciful notion to suggest that terrorists love repressive legislation. Terrorists like to see the Governments of the countries in which they are active bringin draconian legislation—the more draconian, the better. Terrorists use such legislation to justify their actions. To repeat what I said on Second Reading: the Prime Minister may say that terrorists need the oxygen of publicity—they may like it�žbut they also need the oxygen of repressive legislation.
If part II of the Bill was deleted, it would deliver a hammer blow to the terrorists. When a terrotist is excluded to Ireland, that event is always used by terrorist propaganda. I have already said that one of the aims of terrorism is to incite a Government to introduce repressive measures, and their subsequent unpopularity is used by the terrorists to increase their criticism of those measures and also as an excuse for increased violence.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Can the hon. Gentleman square his argument with the fact that the Governments of virtually every Western liberal democracy, in the face of the threat of terrorism, have felt obliged to introduce extra powers? It is not just this country or the hon. Gentleman's party that has introduced such powers; it is a universal pattern followed by Governments throughout western democracy.

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to what we said on Second Reading, in Committee or what I have said today. Exclusion powers are not used by any other European state, or by any other democracy in the western world.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: In relation to what the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has said, would the hon. Gentleman care to state hat other countries use a form of internal exile? There must be a clear distinction between exclusion from one country to another and a form of exclusion that operates within one jurisdiction.

Mr. Sheerman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his help. Conservative Members will appreciate that that is


the thrust of our argument. No other civilised, democratic society has such a power. That is why it is so objectionable. The power of exclusion is reminiscent of the middle ages and characteristic of non-democratic regimes. We hate terrorism and terrorists, and we understand that terrorists must be pursued, but to pursue them with the wrong laws and powers gets us nowhere. That helps terrorism.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Some countries have had such powers. Stalinist Russia expelled some quite distinguished people to Siberia, and so did Tsarist Russia. If that is the company that the Government want to keep, they are welcome to it.

Mr. Sheerman: That is precisely the point that we made over many hours in Committee.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has said that the IRA and other terrorist organisations welcome these draconian powers for exclusion orders. He has said that in Northern Ireland terrorist organisations use exclusion orders for propaganda purposes. Can he give any examples of people who have been excluded from the United Kingdom mainland publicising that in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are some examples of that. I do not have the references with me, but I am sure that some of my hon. Friends can supply them. It is rarely done, but it happens, and certainly in the context of exclusions that people feel are frivolous or amusing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has given the example of an Irish folk dance group that was excluded. That is one way in which the law pertaining to terrorism and terrorists can be sent up by the terrorists. The power to exclude is unacceptable in democratic societies.
There is no real opportunity to challenge the evidence upon which the Secretary of State makes an exclusion order. One of the main thrusts of the criticism that we have levelled, not only against the exclusion power but against the Bill as a whole, is that the Executive power is great and runs throughout the Bill. That power is untrammelled and unchecked by the kind of checking by a legislature or judiciary that is normal in a civilised and democratic society. There is no regular review procedure either. That contravenes article 6.1 of the European convention on human rights, which says:
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Such avenues are not open to people who are subject to exclusion orders. It could not seriously be said that the current right to make representations to the Secretary of State constitutes compliance with article 6(1).
The Secretary of State has advisers on exclusion orders. They are appointed by the Secretary of State and he normally listens to their advice and acts on it. That is not the thrust of our criticisms. It is that this is a private and secret hearing and does not give any chance for the evidence upon which an exclusion order is based to come into the public domain or even to be brought to the attention of the person who may be excluded. Most people in the United Kingdom are totally ignorant of that element in the Bill—that one's rights to live in any part of the United Kingdom can be taken away without challenge.
Not only are normal judicial powers not involved in exclusion orders, but there is no real accountability to Parliament. That is because the Secretary of State will not discuss such cases in Parliament and hon. Members are not permitted to see evidence. That means that there is not only no judicial involvement, but no legislative involvement. That shows again that the power of the Executive is untrammelled. There is no statutory right to be informed of the reasons for the granting of an exclusion order or of the evidence or information that is being used. That means that there is a possibility of inaccurate evidence being used, such as evidence from unreliable informers. The difficulty in challenging an exclusion order is even more dramatically highlighted by that.
The gist of our criticism will by now be clear to hon. Members. The exclusion power should not be in any legislation in a democratic society, and we have it only because it has been with us for a long time. I should like to go into some detail on the assessment of Lord Colville of Culross, a former Conservative Minister, who was asked to look at the legislation and its working in an objective way, In assessment 11.6.1 Lord Colville says:
Lord Jellicoe took the view that exclusion orders, of which there were then over 240 extant, materially contributed to public safety in Great Britain; and in Northern Ireland too, though there it is necessary to put into the balance any added risk to the security forces. I have to agree that it is probably an effective way of getting rid of people from an area where otherwise they might cause great trouble; and that it disrupts terrorist lines of communication and supply of arms, ammunition and explosives.
Lord Colville was fair in putting that on record. However,
he says:
I am not convinced that the ends justify these means. I renew my recommendation, made in the annual report on the Act for 1986, that Part II of the Act should not be renewed in 1988, or not replaced in the new Bill. The Home Secretary announced earlier this year that after careful consideration he had decided it would not now be wise to discontinue this power. I recognise that the alternative is a hard decision, but I express the view that it would be the correct one both in terms of civil rights in the United Kingdom and this country's reputation in that respect among the International Community.
There could be no clearer condemnation of the exclusion power. That largely says it all.
The Minister has had some time for mature reflection and, as Lord Colville said, this is a hard decision. Some decisions in politics, such as those that flow from a knee-jerk reaction or that are in line with what has gone before, are easy to make. It takes a true politician, perhaps a true statesman, to make a difficult decision. On Second Reading, in Committee and again now, we asked the Minister to show that he has the mettle to take tough decisions. The Home Secretary likes to tell us, in press conferences and on television, that he is capable of taking tough decisions and of looking at how things have been done over a long period and taking a new direction. There is little evidence to date that, on the Bill, he has done anything of the kind.
4.30 pm
Let us put exclusion orders in context. Through the Bill, new clauses are added to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. The Bill is a civil servant's dream. Everything has been added and nothing lost. Not one ha'p'orth has been taken out of the Bill. Whatever the arguments of the Opposition in Committee, almost every


comma and dot of the Bill remains as it was. The Committee made no change to the Bill either in detail or in its main thrust.
We welcomed one provision of the Bill, that which will prevent the flow of money to terrorists. We welcome that power, although we thought that it was not necessary to have another Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill to legislate for it. The Government have bolted it on to this old and creaking Act.
Here is an opportunity at least to unbolt the worst part of the Bill and to discard the exclusion orders. It has not been done in this House. Perhaps the Government will have time for greater reflection in the other place.
Had the Government dropped exclusion orders, they would have sent a signal to Northern Ireland and to the people on the mainland that the House of Commons, and perhaps even the Government, were taking the argument on civil rights and people living under the rule of law more seriously than they had for some time. Lord Jellicoe moved towards this position and independent assessment moved progressively towards asking the Government—any Government�žto get rid of the exclusion power. It did not come about, but we hope that tonight the House will vote to make sure that the exclusion order power comes off the statute book.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When I told my constituents, through my weekly newspaper column, that I was serving on the Committee examining the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, a number of them said, "That won't take very long because it must be a bipartisan Committee with the Labour party supporting the Bill." I had to disabuse my constituents by telling them that the Labour party was opposing the Bill, which renews the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. It is difficult to understand why the Opposition oppose it, especially after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). It lasted for 38 minutes but he was not able to tell the House why a Bill that was first introduced by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, when he was a Member of Parliament In 1974, should not now be supported by the Opposition. In 1974, the Act was given the support of the then loyal Opposition, the Conservative party.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that the decision had been taken after mature reflection, and he asked Conservative Members to praise the Labour party for having changed its mind on this subject. If I felt that the Labour party had changed its mind on mature reflection, I might have been able to listen to its arguments with some respect, but, once again, that change of mind took place only when the Labour party went in to opposition.
In five years of the previous Labour Government, Labour Members supported the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. They had no mature reflection between 1974 and 1979x2014;they were happy to support it. Their mature reflection began only when they formed the Opposition and no longer had the responsibility for governing the country and protecting the nation against terrorism.

Mr. Peter Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman tell his constituents that the most effective way

to fight terrorism is to pass an Act labelled "the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act"? Does it not depend to some extent on what is in the Act? Lord Colville is not a member of the Opposition, and he agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) about this provision.

Mr. Bennett: I tell my constituents what is in the Bill, and I shall return to its provisions in a moment. I am just drawing attention to the Labour party's behaviour on this matter because we are seeing in this, as in so many other subjects, the Labour party in opposition putting forward a different view from that which it put forward when it was in government. An analogy is the case of nuclear weapons. The last Labour Government were a firm supporter of nuclear weapons and independent deterrent policy. They even wanted to modernise it. Their Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, had to exclude the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) from the Cabinet discussions in case they were leaked, but the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was happy to work for five years in a Labour Government who supported nuclear weapons and then to change his mind when he left office.
The same is true on this issue. The Labour party opposes legislation only when it goes into opposition. We are entitled to ask what is happening when the Opposition are prepared to do a 180-degree turn.

Mr. Frank Cook: Get on with it.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) may not like what I am saying. If he wants to take part in the debate, perhaps he should get up and say why the Labour party has changed its mind rather than shouting from a sedentary position. I shall give way if he wishes to intervene, but he obviously does not wish to do so.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Member cannot accuse me of changing my mind on this. I was here when the Act was first published and I have been here for the passage of each Bill that renewed and amended the Act. The hon. Gentleman has not yet referred to the amendments that we are debating. The atmosphere in 1974, when the Act was first introduced, was horrific, and it arose from the Birmingham bombings. The then Labour Government realised that there was hysteria and panic among the public, as there was among some Members of Parliament. Many of us, including myself, fought against the Government of the day. Many people are now opposed to the Act because of the over-enthusiastic and brutal way in which the Government are carrying out the Act's provisions and adding to it every time it is renewed. That is one among many reasons why we have changed our minds.

Mr. Bennett: Amendment No. 27 deals with exclusion orders. There are now fewer exclusion orders in being than there were in the last year of the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman may talk about hysteria, but this Government have a balanced view towards the use of exclusion orders and have reduced the number.
If the hon. Member for Huddersfield believes that we do not need exclusion orders, he must face two different ways. The first is to say that exclusion orders do not work, and so are a waste of time. I believe that that was what the hon. Gentleman meant to say. The alternative is that exclusion orders work and have been successful and we do


not need them any longer. Whichever way the Government face—if they were to accept the Opposition's point of view and withdraw exclusion orders or, as we propose, continue them—the hon. Member for Huddersfield would attack us. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman is saying that exclusion orders do not work, but that, on the other hand, if they do work, they reduce the number of people involved and are therefore no longer necessary. That is a catch 22 position which it is not respectable for the Opposition to put forward.
It is not respectable for the Opposition to advance such a view when the Opposition contain some hon. Members who actively support terrorist organisations. It is not respectable for them to claim that every Opposition Member supports that point of view. I know that the overwhelming majority of Opposition Members support the Government—

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman give chapter and verse to support his claim that Opposition Members support terrorist organisations, or will he withdraw it?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor will now explain himself.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said "actively"; he did not just say, "supporting". One might support people in general terms, perhaps wrongly, but the hon. Gentleman said "actively", and that is not good enough.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We had these points of order in a similar debate earlier and they were dealt with at that time. The hon. Gentleman is not naming any one person—he is generalising—but I hope that he will explain himself and now come to the amendment before us.

Mr. Bennett: Let me name an hon. Member who actively supports the so-called freedom fighters. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is often in the Chamber to question Ministers on Northern Ireland matters—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I dealt with a similar matter earlier in the debate, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw what he has just said.

Mr. Bennett: I withdraw the hon. Gentleman's name, and shall quote an anonymous hon. Member who has said that the IRA are freedom fighters—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not have anonymous Members in this House. This matter has been dealt with earlier in the debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will conduct himself in a proper parliamentary manner.

Mr. Bennett: I apologise, and withdraw my remark, but it is a fact, in public print, that statements have been made which are capable of the analysis that I would have made if I had continued.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his comment, not paraphrase it—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is on record that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn his comment and apologised. I now ask him to come to the substance of the amendment.

Mr. Bennett: The purpose of amendment No. 27 is to get rid of exclusion orders. It is a matter of judgment and balance as to whether exclusion orders work. It is clear that, when Lord Jellicoe considered the matter, he believed that they worked, and that the police officers representing England, Wales and Scotland believe that they work and are effective. Lord Colville has opposed them because he believes that the end does not justify the means. However, he is not arguing that those means do not have effect, and do not work. It must be a matter of judgment on the part of individual Members whether the means justify the end.
If the end is to exclude people whose behaviour and actions would lead to the maiming and destruction of human life in this country and to explosions on the mainland of Great Britain, and if those people are known to be involved or there are good grounds for believing that they would act on behalf of the IRA, the Government have the right to exclude them from the mainland of the United Kingdom. The House would not be right to take away from the police and security services that valuable weapon which is clearly effective when used sparingly as at present. It is not a suitable argument for the Opposition :o claim that terrorists welcome such a clause, because clearly they do not. It attacks the heart of the organisation and disrupts its supply lines, organisation and terrorism We should therefore welcome it and take note of the comments of the people who have to deal with;.t at the sharp end—the police officers and the security services— and back them in supporting the retention of the exclusion clause in the Bill.

Mr. Robert MacLennan: Perhaps it is true that the further one is from office the more difficult it is to put oneself in the shoes of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. That might have something to do with what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has described as the Labour party's change of mind about exclusion orders. It was not clear from his speech whether he and his hon. Friends took the view that it had never been right to use exclusion orders or that exclusion orders were now unsuitable because the circumstances had changed. Those are two very different positions. As I understand it, there was no doubt within the Labour Government that, although those measures were unpalatable and draconian in terms of their undoubted curtailment of human rights they were justified in terms of their impact on the safety of the community.
If the situation had changed, we were entitled during the hon. Gentleman's 38-minute speech to hear some reasons for that. The arguments adduced by the hon. Gentleman might as well have been deployed when the Labour party was still in government. They did not address the question of the present threat in a different way from that which had prevailed before the present Government took office.

Mr. David Sumberg: Perhaps 1 might suggest the change of circumstances that has caused that change of heart. In 1974, the people in control of the Labour party were the decent, good Socialists who always


run the Labour party and manage to get elected, whereas the people now in control are members on the Left, as represented by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough {Mr. Flannery). Hence the decision to oppose the exclusion orders.

Mr. Macknnan: I do not wish to devote much of my speech, which will not be as long as that of the hon. Member for Huddersfkld, to cross-examining the Labour party. However, if that is the best argument that can be made against the continuation of exclusion orders, it is not very strong. Clearly, no Home Secretary will adhere to the policy of supporting exclusion orders which plainly infringe human rights, unless there are overwhelmingly strong reasons for so doing and those reasons are bound up with the protection of our citizens from the threat of terrorism and the particular threat of terrrorism in Northern Ireland, Unlike much of the rest of the Bill, these measures are not designed to deal with the general threat of terrorism. They are concerned exclusively with the Northern Ireland threat.
In this debate, we are bound to consider extremely closely the recommendations of the Government's appointed reporter on the operation of the prevention of terrorism legislation. Lord Colville of Culross. I have no doubt that the Government did so before rejecting Lord Colville's recommendations. Earlier contributions to this debate suggest that the Government paid a great deal of attention to those recommendations, although they decided not to follow his advice.
Some changes in circumstances can be seen if one considers carefully what Lord Colville said about the operation of exclusion orders. There is a decline in the number of people subject to such orders. There is an increase in the number of people who are successfully appealing against them, using the internal mechanism of addressing the adviser, to whom they have access as of right. Lord Colville's remarks suggest that that increased use may indeed reflect some growth in confidence among those to whom exclusion orders have been applied—that there is a fairness and open-minded ness in the examination of the case by the adviser and the Home Secretary.
It is important to recall the facts as stated by Lord Colville, who pointed out that, in the year that he was reviewing, two of the new orders and three of the renewed orders were revoked. I refer to paragraph 11.3.1 of the report, which hon. Members no doubt have to hand At the time of writing, representations had been made against eight of the 17 new orders made so far. In four cases, the order had been confirmed and the remaining four were still receiving consideration. In addition, representations were made against four of the 16 orders renewed in the first quarter of the year. Two of the orders were confirmed and two revoked.
I dwell on those points because I think it important to realise that, although this is a draconian power, being exercised without recourse to the courts to test its exercise by the Executive, it is being exercised with some discretion, and some of those subject to exclusion orders are having them revoked. I do not regard that as the rule of law in any normal sense, and I share Lord Colville's natural predisposition to call into question an Executive action that so curbs fundamental rights and freedoms.
I cannot think, however, that it would be right for the Home Secretary to give paramount consideration to that factor in deciding whether the powers should be renewed for another year. He must decide whether the powers materially contribute to the safety of our citizens. If, in the light of his knowledge of the general circumstances and of particular cases, he feels able and bound to tell the House that he requires such powers, I do not think that it is open to us to do more than ensure that he has addressed himself to the right questions and given the measures concerned the attention that they merit.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr, Sheerman) read out Lord Colville's crucial assessment, and I shall not repeat it, but it should be recognised that Lord Colville did not call into question the efficacy of exclusion as a means of controlling terrorism and terrorists' movements. He suggested that, if the powers did not exist, considerable risks would be posed. He described the powers as effecting the disruption of terrorist lines of communication and supply of arms, ammunition and explosives, and as an effective way of getting rid of people from an area where otherwise they might cause great trouble.

Mr. Heffer: I heard the hon. Gentleman's intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). The hon. Gentleman represents a party that is supposed to be deeply concerned with civil liberties. Do his comments mean that he has not yet caught up with a member of the Tory party, and that his party is not really in favour of the civil liberties of which it claims to be in favour?

Mr. Maclennan: I think that my record on the issue is perhaps even clearer than the hon. Gentleman's. I promoted a Bill, which he did not support, to incorporate in our domestic law the provisions of the European convention on human rights, and I am very sensitive to any derogation from the convention or any provisions that curtail the fundamental rights and freedoms of our citizens, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends. There are, however, circumstances, recognised in the convention, in which Governments must circumscribe those liberties. They include circumstances in which there is a threat to national security—that phrase is drawn from the convention—and we are dealing with such circumstances here. No one can doubt that the power of terrorists in Northern Ireland to create havoc and mayhem on both sides of the Channel remains very strong.
That is why, with great reluctance, my right hon and hon. Friends and I feel bound to accept the Home Secretary's judgment on this issue for this year. We are glad that the Government have introduced the legislation in a form that will enable us to address these questions again, for the powers cannot be extended beyond the operative date without renewal by the House. We should and must give the powers scrutiny no less detailed than Lord Colville's when we reconsider them in a year's time. We expect the Home Secretary not only to scrutinise each case through his own system of internal review, but to consider whether such a curtailment of fundamental rights and freedoms is justified in terms of the perceived threat, and to do so with continuity, before he comes back to ask for a further renewal of his powers.

Mr. Hunter: I do not propose to pursue the line, or the tone, of the robust contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). I had no intention


of speaking until the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) responded to my intervention, as did the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
Let me make it clear that I do not for a moment dispute the sincerity of any declaration by Opposition Members of their opposition to terrorism. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said on Second Reading that all that we were talking about was the best way in which to deal with terrorism, and I broadly accept what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said.
I wonder, however, whether the hon. Member for Huddersfield has fully appreciated the depth and the extent of part II. His reply to my intervention suggested to me that he, and perhaps the hon. Member for Hillsborough, regarded part II as merely an internal mechanism of exile. That is not the case. It is clearly stated that clauses 5 and 7 enable the Secretary of State to make exclusion orders
prohibiting a person from being in, or entering
Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. We are not dealing merely with a mechanism to keep terrorists in Northern Ireland, as I believe the hon. member for Huddersfield said in Committee. Part II is far wider than his reponse to me suggested.
On Report, as on Second Reading and in Committee, all hon. Members have been inclined to appeal to their sources of authority. Opposition Members have often turned to Lord Colville, and found that parts of his report differed from the Bill, but he is not the only authority to have pronounced on the legislation. Lord Jellicoe concluded that exclusion powers
materially contributed to public safety in the nited Kingdom.
I readily confess that I adopt that attitude.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield would have been on safer and surer ground if he had not attacked exclusion per se but rather the scope of exclusion orders within part II. It might be asked why they were connected only with the affairs of Northern Ireland. The Bill deals too excessively with terrorism related to Northern Ireland and does not sufficiently take into account the phenomenon of international terrorism.
If the hon. Member for Huddersfield and other Opposition Members had said that part II was too limited, they might have found significant support from Conservative Members. Our quarrel, far from being theirs—that there should be no exclusion orders—is rather that the exclusion orders within part II are too limited. If, as the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, the aim is seriously to confront international terrorism, the Bill is limited, rather than deficient.

5 pm

Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend and I have both made a similar point. He may recall that the Minister said that he would give the matter further consideration. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my intervention as a prompt, to obtain some information from the Minister about how he has addressed the problem since we were in Committee.

Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that comment in Committee. We look forward to the Minister replying to it.
The essential argument is that terrorism, far from relying on the oxygen of abnormality, is itself an, abnormal phenomenon and requires abnormal responses. That is why I totally support the Secretary of State's having the right to exclude. I entirely support part II. The arguments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield are deficient in that they are limited. I hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, that before we conclude the debate the Minister will comment on that fact.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) did the debate a service when he said that he would make no imputations about any hon. Member supporting terrorism or violence. I welcome that. Having sat through the Committee which considered all these matters carefully with a great sense of responsibility, and having had to sit through the timetable motion debate last Monday, I was appalled that, rather than dealing with the issues, the debate almost reached the stage of "holier than thou". A series of people attitudinised, posturised and, to use a more basic word, craw-thumped.
I accept, as does the hon. Member for Basingstoke, that all hon. Members involved in the democratic process are against violence, terrorism and sin. Our discussions are not about who was holier than thou, and when, but about how best to deal with the mutual problem. I hope that Conservative Members will not find it necessary to accuse—in oblique or other terms—hon. Members who feel strongly about the legislation of being soft on or actively supporting terrorism. Opposition Members should not have to thump their breasts every time they speak and state that they oppose violence or terrorism.
The exclusion orders send out two messages. First they send a clear message to the people of Northern Ireland, from whichever side of the tragic political divide. The general message is that the north of Ireland is not as British as Finchley, as the Prime Minister keeps trying to tell us, but is different. It is a place to which to send people whom one does not want to retain within England, Scotland or Wales. There is a feeling of resentment within the Unionist community about that, because it is offensive to those who regard themselves as British. It is also offensive to those who, like myself, do not wish to see a continuation of the link with Britain one day longer than the time it takes to end it by peaceful democratic means. The message to both the Unionist and the Nationalist communities is that, in effect, they are dumping grounds for those who are excluded.
The message is offensive to those in Northern Ireland who are constantly told that the laws of Britain and the membership of this Parliament are the fundamentals by which they should abide, yet a distinction is made in legislation. In terms of the Bill, Finchley is a long way from Belfast or south Armagh.
The second message is to people involved in terrorism. When someone is served with an exclusion order, it is served not on evidence but on intelligence. There is a remarkable gap between intelligence and evidence. The clear message to those involved in terrorism is that there is no evidence on which he can be convicted. If there were, he could be charged before leaving Northern Ireland, when he entered this country or on the way out of it. This is a suspension of a basic form of justice and the substitution of an abnormal means of dealing with the problem on intelligence rather than evidence. That is a fatal flaw.
Even worse is the fact that there is often no hard evidence or intelligence. For that reason, the exclusion orders should be removed, as was suggested by Lord Colville. It is difficult for people who, through no fault of their own, but because of the area in which they live, or their relations' activities, about which they may not know, or a matter of which they have no knowledge, are excluded.
I know that people will nod sagely and say that that will not happen, because there are checks and balances. However, such people should read a book published this morning by a former brigadier in the Parachute Regiment about his attitude to Northern Ireland. It has been said that we should listen to what our police and Army say. We should not just listen, but ask them questions. I recommend that people read that book and realise that, sometimes, what the Army does would not be approved by the House—for example, announcing that there was a bomb on a railway line between Belfast and Dublin when, patently, there was not; and covering up the death of a young soldier in south Armagh so that the incident would not give, in the words of the army brigadier, "publicity to the IRA." We are all against sin, but let us realise that human and legal rights should not be determined always on the word of those whose statements may be difficult at times to substantiate.
Substantial financial losses are often suffered by people involved in exclusion proceedings. Perhaps it is important to remind the House on all occasions of the 80 per cent. unemployment that exists in parts of Belfast. There is 60 per cent. male unemployment in my constituency. Many of those who are unemployed in Northern Ireland have to come to England, Scotland and Wales to get work, and once they come to the mainland, they are immediately under suspicion. It is among those people that the problems of exclusion orders arise.
The problems are not confined to someone losing a job here that he will not be able to find in Northern Ireland. There might be a loss of unemployment benefit. If an individual has built up a business and he is caused to leave it, there will be a loss to him and his entire family. We discussed these matters at length in Committee and I repeat my view that the Government's approach is a harsh one. We argued that some form of compensation should be arranged in certain circumstances, but the Government did not agree.
There are many forms of subterranean activity in Northern Ireland. It is a small place, and news travels fast. When an exclusion order has been placed or when someone has been detained prior to an order being placed, others get to know of it quickly. That knowledge in itself can result in the assassin's bullet. For that reason we should always be extremely careful. Knowledge of the placing of an order, or of detention, is almost enough to result in assassinations as individuals defend their homes.
This part of the Bill is seen to be fundamentally anti-Irish in its structure and in the way in which it will be implemented. It is seen—perception is often more important than reality—as a piece of legislation aimed at those who live on the other side of the Irish sea, and only those. That has a political effect on relations between the two Governments, and those relations must be good and must work positively if terrorism is to be defeated. If

legislation of this sort is retained when it could be done away with, we shall destroy the climate that must prevail if the problem is ever to be solved. How long has such legislation been on the statute book, and has it worked? I know that some will say, "If such legislation had not been in place, we can imagine the terrible things that would have happened." In other words, one would be asked to prove a negative, which would be impossible.
When we consider the Bill in its totality—as we shall later—and the element that we are now discussing in detail, we must ask, "Why, after 14 years, has legislation of this sort, bearing in mind the powers and the means that it gives to the police, the Army and the authorities in both countries to defeat terrorism, not proved to be successful in defeating terrorism and realising the successes that were claimed would result from its implementation?" Why are we still dealing with the problem? I still believe that the wrong approach is to use the punitive type of legislation that we see before us. It has helped terrorism in the past; it has not stopped it.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough): My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) speaks with authority and knowledge of what is happening in Northern Ireland. Having been a Member of this place for some time, he knows a great deal of what happens in the Chamber. Many of us have sat through many debates of this sort over the years—indeed, there is a plethora of Irish Bills being pushed through the House. They are passing through it like lightning. My hon. Friend referred to the timetable motion that was debated last Monday. I was involved in a debate on Thursday of last week—consideration of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill—there is tonight's debate on Irish matters, and there will be another one tomorrow. The Government are forcing us to concentrate on Irish affairs to the exclusion of other issues and we are having an arduous time. It seems that each Irish Bill deals with and follows on from another Irish Bill.
I stay in Pimlico and I often walk along the embankment on my way to this place. As I walk past a tall block of flats I always notice a small obelisk at the side of it. I am sure that most people do not know about the obelisk. For a long time I walked past it casually, but on one occasion I decided to examine it. It is only a few feet from the ground and it bears a plaque on which it is stated that on the site of the obelisk was the old Millbank prison. It was the spot on which deportees to Australia last saw their homeland.
The habit of exclusion continues—there was deportation to Devil's island by the French and by many other countries to many other places—and it is terrible that that should be so. Charles Dickens was well aware of the practice of deportation. He wrote in "Great Expectations" of Abel Magwitch, whose great expectations were given to Pip. Abel was one of those who went, and many of them went innocently. Vast numbers of them were Irish. They were taken to Australia and they had to live there. Some take the view that certain actions will stop people behaving in a certain way. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) used vindictive language and almost accused many of my hon. Friends and others of supporting terrorism.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—

Mr. Flannery: I shall give way in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman used an expression that suggested that he thought that everyone who was excluded was a terrorist. Even if that were true, exclusion would still be appalling. Most of those who are excluded are not terrorists. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman thinks that they are, and considers that many of us are supporters of terrorism. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have given way to him on so many occasions that if a count were made the result would be unbelievable. He is a congenital intervener. I give way to the hon. Gentleman. It seems that he does not want to intervene now. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh tells me that he thought that the hon. Gentleman wished to intervene.

Mr. Mallon: Coitus interruptus.

Mr. Flannery: Coitus interruptus, as my hon. Friend says. I would not have dreamt of saying such a thing.
The vindictive approach of the hon. Gentleman deepens and intensifies the problem we face. My hon. Friend attends funerals with melancholy and frequent regularity within his constituency. His life is in danger, as are the lives of others in Northern Ireland. He saw fit to speak about the element of danger. As soon as it is known that someone has been excluded—he may be innocent, having done nothing—he is immediately in line for the assassin's bullet. The issue should be dealt with more lightly and more gently. The Government's approach is better than it was.
No one can prove that exclusion orders have had the slightest effect on the political position in Northern Ireland or in this country. All they have done is satisfy the vindictive and terrorise people who have been wrongly excluded. They deepen their feeling of alienation from a society which dares to exclude people who have done nothing wrong. Like the Bill, exclusion orders are anti—Irish. They even victimise people who have an Irish accent or name. They do not do what they set out to do—all of which could be done under existing legislation. A United Kingdom citizen, or an alien, can be excluded from Britain to Northern Ireland if the Home Secretary is satisfied that he has been involved in political violence related to Northern Ireland. Such a person is condemned as being involved in those activities, even though he may not. Many times in the House we have raised the cases of people who did nothing to justify their being excluded.
The previous Act and this Bill are examples of the appalling approach of, first, the Labour Government, and especially the Conservative Government, to Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. They are treated as dustbins. The Government can say, "If you remain in this country, you may engage in terrorism, so we shall send you to Northern Ireland." They shrug their shoulders and say, "You may do it in Northern Ireland, but you will not do it here." That attitude is personified by the hon. Member for Pembroke, who tried hard not to withdraw and apologise for what he wrongly said.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I withdrew the remarks, having not been in a position to make the quotations that I would have made had you allowed me to, is it in order for another hon. Member to attack me?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): It is
common courtesy that, once a matter has been settled, it should not be referred to in that manner again.

Mr. Flannery: I accept that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was slightly needled by the continuing discourtesy and the traducing of honourable people.
This part of the Bill has piled grave injustice and great human misery on to innocent people. As many hon. Members have said, it means internal exile. Lord Colville described the power as the most draconian in the Act and opposed exclusion orders. In 1985–86, Sir Cyril Philips, reporting to Parliament on the 1984 Act, recommended that no new exclusion orders should be made. Lord Colville went further and recommended withdrawal of that part of the Act.
That is what the Opposition advocate. We know that we have no chance of winning the vote, but we believe that it is democratically correct to place on record our arguments against the measure. We struggled against the Labour Goverment to do that, and eventually we won them over. People and Governments can be won over, but this Government are a more difficult proposition.
Since 1977, 4,358 people have been detained, 3,701 of whom were neither charged nor excluded. The number of exclusion orders has varied from year to year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, there were 248 in 1982, 99 in 1977 and today between 116 and 120. What misery they have heaped upon many honourable people. We have often been abused, sometimes by good people, because of our opposition to the Act. Even in this Chamber, we are pointed out as supporters of terrorism. But we oppose exclusion orders, just as we have opposed the entire Act.

Mr. Heffer: I support the amendment. This part of the Bill should be dropped altogether. I am not particularly enthusiastic about the Bill. That does not mean that at one stage of my life I did not go along with the Act. I do not think that I ever voted for it, but there were occasions at the beginning when I did not vote against against it. The reason for that was the horrific events that were taking place at the time. Most of us felt that some immediate action had to be taken. We were not happy about the Act, and we were certainly not happy about the basic problem of civil liberties.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) asked why the Labour party is now against the Act officially, when the Labour Government introduced it in the first place and supported it thereafter. That is a fair question, and it deserves a fair answer. The reason is that, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, after 14 years the Act has changed nothing. The problem remains the same. We need to look at the reasons behind the troubles in Northern Ireland. Why are there still shootings, killings, and terrible sectarian murders? Has the Act, particularly this part, contributed to changing the position? I believe that it has not.
What worries me about this part of the Bill is that it can be, and is being, interpreted as anti-Irish. Some of us who are, unfortunately, old enough to remember the Second world war, remember that thousands upon thousands of people from Southern and Northern Ireland came to this country and joined the Army, Navy and Air Force. They fought alongside people from England, Scotland and Wales to defend the liberties of the people of these islands


against the Nazis. Thousands of them were killed. There is a special relationship. Our history shows that the English, with the Scots and the Welsh, dominated Ireland for centuries. The Cromwellian efforts in Ireland were not something of which we could be especially proud, yet I am a good parliamentarian and I believe that we would not have the liberties that we have now were it not for Cromwell and the parliamentarians and what they fought for.
We must recognise that a special relationship exists with the peoples of the whole of Ireland—not a phoney relationship, such as the one with the United States. It is therefore scandalous to read in part II that people who have lived and worked for many years in this country, but who come under suspicion—perhaps because some of their relatives have taken a different position and have ended up in gaol in Northern Ireland or they have relatives in Southern Ireland—may find themselves being excluded from this country.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I do not want to misinterpret what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I believe that he was saying that a person could be excluded from Great Britain even if he had been ordinarily here for many years. That would not be right.

Mr. Heffer: In that case, I cannot read. The Bill says:
In deciding whether to make an exclusion order under this section against a person who is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the question whether that person's connection with any country or territory outside the United Kingdom is such as to make it appropriate that such an order should be made.
Perhaps I have not understood that correctly. Can the Minister assure me of that?

Mr. Hogg: If the person concerned is a British citizen and has been ordinarily resident in the relevant part of the United Kingdom, he cannot be excluded.

Mr. Heffer: I did not say anything different from that. I was not arguing about the position of a British citizen; I was talking about people who may not be British citizens, who may be citizens of Southern Ireland, but who have lived in this country for 25, 30 or 40 years and who could be excluded from this country under the provisions of part II. The Minister seems to agree that that is what the Bill says.

Mr. Hogg: I am trying to follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If I do him an injustice, I apologise. I thought that he was talking about people from Northern Ireland who were ordinarily resident here and who might be excluded.

Mr. Heffer: I did not say that. People who live here, work here and vote here can be excluded under the provisions of the Bill and can be as much involved in the exclusion order as anybody else. That is not internal exile, although it would be internal exile if a person from Southern Ireland was sent to Southern Ireland under an exclusion order.

Mr. Mallon: I am becoming confused about the Minister's point. I understand that, under law, I am a

British citizen. Under the Bill, I could be excluded from England, Scotland and Wales; so, in effect, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is correct. However, if the position has changed—although I am not aware that it has—and I am not a British citizen, I shall lead the trek down to the bar in another place and I shall buy at that bar with great pleasure.

Mr. Heffer: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. The Bill proposes two types of exclusion. There will be internal exile if people who have lived in this country and who are British citizens are excluded to Northern Ireland. Equally, people who may not be British citizens but who are from Southern Ireland may be excluded. We have had this special relationship for a long time. People who may not be guilty of anything other than association because they have relatives could be picked up for any reason and excluded from this country, even if they have been here for 30 to 40 years. That is exactly what happened in Tsarist Russia and Soviet Russia, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) pointed out earlier.
I now come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). He said that the matter was one of basic civil liberties. We cannot accept the exclusion order, but must argue and fight against it. I am glad that the Minister accepts that Labour Members are not in favour of terrorism, but I am worried that some newspapers and some Conservative Members consider that because I am putting forward this argument—and had the temerity to query what had happened to four people in Gibraltar—I am automatically a supporter of terrorism. The finger is pointed at me. However, we should still stand up and fight for what we believe to be right, especially when civil liberties are involved. The day that we cave in on that, all our basic liberties and concepts of democracy and freedom will go for all time and we shall be craven people from then on, living in terror. If we believe in the democratic process, we cannot accept that.
I now want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I do not know how his party can talk about its Liberal background—even its Social Democratic background— and say that it is the champion of freedom and democracy. I heard the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) make quite a good speech on the platform at his party conference—it was, in many respects, an excellent speech. He attacked what the Government was doing in relation to civil liberties in a forthright manner, which was perfectly acceptable to me. But the party's practice is very different from its speeches at such public demonstrations.
Social and Liberal Democratic Members prove that, when they run away from dealing with issues such as the one today because they fear that the issue is unpopular or that they may be misinterpreted. Even if one fears misinterpretation, one must take a clear stand on the issue. I hope that we shall have maximum support for the excellent contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Opposition's case is that we should do away with the exclusion order-making power. It is perhaps desirable to remind ourselves of the arguments that they have made in support of amendment No. 27.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who was nothing if not robust, described the exclusion


order-making power as disgraceful and villainous. He said that it was unacceptable to all true democrats and true champions of democracy. He asserted, in other words, propositions of fundamental principle. However, if his difference with the Government is a matter of fundamental principle, how was it that the Labour Government introduced these provisions in 1974 and 1976?
It is not good enough to say, "After mature reflection we have changed our mind," because although after mature reflection on matters that are nicely balanced one can certainly change one's mind, it makes no sense when one is talking about matters of fundamental political philosophy. To say, "After mature reflection we have changed our minds," is not a proposition which hangs together in such cases and, because it does not hang together, I find the whole case deployed against the exclusion order-making power unacceptable.
It is desirable that we reflect on the circumstances in which the exclusion order-making power can be made. It is set out in clause 5, which states that the Secretary of State may make an exclusion order
If the Secretary of State is satisfied that any person—
(a) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies; or
(b) is attempting or may attempt to enter Great Britain with a view to being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism,".
As the House knows, similar powers apply in the case of Northern Ireland and rest with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Those powers are tightly drawn and they are subject to further restrictions, such as those set out in the remainder of part II, which limits the power in respect of British citizens, ordinarily resident in the relevant part of the United Kingdom for three years or more. It is interesting to note Lord Colville's views about how the order-making powers have been operated. The one thing that he made wholly plain was his conviction that the powers are used in a fair and reasonable manner. He said:
if exclusion orders were to stay, I am entirely satisfied that the applications are prepared with great care and processed by officials in both Departments concerned with meticulous regard to the statutory grounds set out at the beginning of this Chapter.

Ms. Mowlam: We must be careful of the Minister's nasty habit of quoting selectively from Lord Colville when it suits him. The Minister quoted from points 45 and 44, but, with the logical consistency that we have learned to love in the Minister, he missed point 43 which states:
the authorities in Northern Ireland would not be severely handicapped by the abolition of the exclusion orders.
Will the Minister please put his comments in context?

Mr. Hogg: I am perfectly well aware of Lord Colville's conclusions, but at the moment I am dealing with the narrow point of whether the order-making powers are being exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. The plain fact is that, having examined this matter, Lord Colville concluded that they were. Perhaps that is not wholly surprising when one bears in mind the fact that, at the end of last year, only 144 orders were in place in the United Kingdom. If we can be sure that the order-making power is being exercised meticulously and carefully and with full regard to the statutory criteria—

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister knows that the case that we made many times in Committee was that surely good

law, which guarantees rights and civil liberties to individual citizens in this country, must be above the individual whim and practice of particular Home Secretaries. We embarrassed the Minister several times by contrasting the attitudes of different Home Secretaries to different parts of the legislation. Bad law presents a vacuum that can be filled in different ways by different Home Secretaries.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman should direct his mind to the need for the order-making power, to which I shall now turn. The questions that the House must consider are, who says that we need the order-making power, and why do we need it? Once again, the answer to those two questions appears clearly in Lord Colville's report, which makes it plain that all the senior officers of the police forces in England and Wales are ardent supporters of exclusion orders. Lord Colville stated:
With one accord they say that they would not be able to provide surveillance for all the Irish terrorists who might arrive.
Later in the report, under the heading "Assessment", Lord Colville's more qualitative judgment of the effect of the powers is:
I have to agree that it is probably an effective way of getting rid of people from an area where otherwise they might cause great trouble; and that it disrupts terrorist lines of communication and supply of arms, ammunition and explosives.
5.45 pm
It is perfectly true that in the end Lord Colville came to a different conclusion from that which I commend to the House, but there is no doubt that he was satisfied that the powers address a real need and have a real and desirable consequence.
It is wrong to suppose that where facts exist that justify the making of an exclusion order, there inevitably exist facts that justify the institution of criminal proceedings against such a person. That, too, was one of Lord Colville's specific findings.
However, in the end, there is no answer to the question that was posed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading when he outlined to the House the fact that earlier in 1988 he had had to deal with a number of terrorists operating in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, against whom it was not possible to press specific charges, although they were known to be about terrorist business. My right hon. Friend has to ask himself whether he should do noting or whether he had to make an exclusion order. His decision was to make an exclusion order, and that would have been the decision of every person who has had direct responsibility for carrying through such business. It is for that reason that I reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 2

Exclusion Orders

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 24, line 5 leave out 'if necessary by force'— [Mr. Douglas Hogg]

Clause 12

DISCLOSURE OF INMFORMATION ABOUT TERRORIST FUNDS

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 38, at end insert 'express'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Hogg: I move the amendment formally, but if specific questions arise, I shall be pleased to try to answer them.

Mr. Archer: I do not wish to detain the House, but I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the case for amendment No. 1. On the face of it, I cannot see the difference between a police officer giving "express" instructions to someone to take a particular course of action or implying that he has given those instructions and allowing someone to think that this is the course of action that he wishes them to take.

Mr. Hogg: In the absence of the word "express" there could be dispute. People might assume that they have received implied consent and there could be an argument about that. It is better by far to make it plain that the consent must be express, that is why we have tabled the amendment.

Mr. Archer: I only hope that it will be made clear to police constables that they should take great care and not let anyone think falsely that he is being encouraged to take a particular course of action.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacLennan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Amendment No. 28 was not a Government amendment. I wonder whether there is any way of the House knowing at this stage whether the Government accepted that amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: There is no way now that we can go back to that. The Government have not accepted the amendment.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 7, line 43, after 'made', insert
'after he enters into or otherwise becomes concerned in the transaction or arrangement in question but is made'.

No. 3, in page 7, line 44, at end insert
'but paragraphs (a) and (b) above do not apply in a case where, having disclosed any such suspicion, belief or matter to a constable and having been forbidden by a constable to enter into or otherwise be concerned in the transaction or arrangement in question, he nevertheless does so'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Clause 13

PENALTIIES AND FORFEITURE

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 8, line 41, leave out from 'property' to end of line 44.

No. 30, in page 9, line 3, leave out
'to which subsection (5) above applies'

and insert 'under this section'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Schedule 4

FORFEITURE ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 28, line 45, at end insert—

'(cc) directing a specified part of any money, or of the proceeds of the sale, disposal or realisation of any property, to which the forfeiture order applies to be paid by the proper officer to or for a specified person falling within section 13(6) of this Act;'.

No. 32, in page 28, line 48, leave out 'or (c)' and insert ',(c) or (cc)'.

No. 33, in page 29, line 5, after 'under', insert 'sub-paragraph (l)(cc) above or'.

No. 34, in page 34, line 27, at end insert—
'(bb) directing a specified part of any money, or of the proceeds of the sale, disposal or realisation of any property, to which the forfeiture order applies to be paid to or for a specified person falling within section 13(6) of this Act;'.

No. 35, in page 34, line 30, leave out 'or (b)' and insert ',(b) or (bb)'.

No. 37, in page 34, line 34, at end insert 'sub-paragraph (l)(bb) above or'.

No. 39, in page 40, line 26, at end insert—
'(cc) directing a specified part of any money, or of the proceeds of the sale, disposal or realisation of any property, to which the forfeiture order applies to be paid by the proper officer to or for a specified person falling within section 13(6) of this Act;'.

No. 40, in page 40, line 30, leave out 'or (c)' and insert ',(c) or (cc)'.

No. 41, in page 40, line 35, after 'under', insert 'sub-paragraph (l)(cc) above or'.

No. 7, in page 31, line 36, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.

No. 8, in page 32, line 3, at end insert—
'(6) Sub-paragraph (8) of paragraph 3 above applies for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that paragraph.'.

No. 9, in page 37, line 32, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.

No. 10, in page 37, line 50, at end insert—
'(7) sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 13 above applies for the purposes of this paragraph.'.

No. 11, in page 41, line 6, after 'take', insert 'that'.

No. 12, in page 41, line 29, after 'charged' insert 'in Northern Ireland'.

No. 13, in page 43, line 17, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.

No. 14, in page 43, line 33, at end insert—

'(6) sub-paragraph (8) of paragraph 23 above applies for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that paragraph.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Schedule 5

PORT AND BORDER CONTROL

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 48, line 35, leave out from first 'him' to end of line 36.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Schedule 8

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 64, line 4, at end insert—
'(4) In Schedule 14—
(a) in paragraph 5, for the words "section" 12(l)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984" there shall be substituted the words "section" 14(l)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989"; and
(b) in paragraph 6, for the definition of "the terrorism provisions", there shall be substituted—
'"the terrorism provisions' means section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and any


provision of Schedule 2 or 5 to that Act conferring a power of arrest or detention.".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Schedule 4

FORFEITURE ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 34, line 30, at end insert—
'(1A) The Court of Session may by rules of court prescribe the powers and duties of an administrator appointed under sub-paragraph (l)(b) above.'.
No. 38, in page 35, line 4, at end insert—
'(3) The accountant of the court shall supervise an administrator appointed under paragraph 11 above in the exercise of the powers conferred, and discharge of the duties imposed, on him under or by virtue of that paragraph.'.— [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Clause 14

ARRERST AND DETENTIION OF SUSPECTED PERSONS

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 9, line 38, leave out 'five' and insert 'two'.
This amendment, if carried, would require the Government to respect and observe the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan and others. That is to say that, if carried, the amendment would require the Government to accept that men and women should not be detained for seven days without either charge or judicial review. In the limited time available for this debate—just over an hour to consider whether the Government were right to derogate from the court's ruling—there is no opportunity to do more than discuss three central issues which should dominate our consideration of the amendments.
The first is the issue of principle—whether it is reasonable in any circumstances to detain a suspect for seven days without charge or judicial review. The second issue is whether it is reasonable to derogate from the European convention on human rights in these circumstances. The third issue is whether it is reasonable for the Government to invite us, as they do today, to pass into law a Bill which, if we are to take the Government's word, as I do, they hope substantially to amend in the immediate future. In each case, the Government's conduct is unreasonable.
By far the most important of the three issues concerns the question whether seven-day detention without judicial review is right, or, for that matter, necessary. The European court adjudges that, in general, it is not right, and it adjudges that for specific reasons. Men and women should be held in prison only when they are suspected of specific offences and when it is at least anticipated that they are to be charged with specific offences, not when their detention is convenient to the Government to deter others or to trawl for information. We know that the immediately previous Home Secretary has been explicit in saying that the prevention of terrorism powers were intended for exactly the purposes that the European court, and, indeed, all civilised people, deplore.
Sir Leon Brittan's own words in the House were these:
The use of the powers of detention under the legislation has acted, first, as a deterrent to persons other than the people who have been detained and, secondly, it has in the course of the detention of those concerned enabled some to be excluded and charged on the basis of information to be obtained that

was of direct value in the battle against terrorism, even though it did not lead to action against the people concerned."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983, Vol. 47, C. 55–56.]
In Committee, the Minister quoted the Solicitor-General before the European court expressly denying that the Government would use detention for those disreputable purposes which the previous Home Secretary said were the intention of the Bill. But it was the Solicitor-General's duty—I do not blame him for carrying it out—to put the best possible interpretation on the Government's actions when he addressed the court. If the previous Home Secretary is to be believed, there is no doubt that, if they wished, any Government could disreputably use the present Act and the proposed powers of the new Bill. Indeed, if the previous Home Secretary is to be believed, there is no doubt that the Government have disreputably used the present Act and the present powers. I repeat that there is absolutely no doubt that, if they choose, future Governments could use such powers to trawl for information.
On 24 October 1983, I asked the previous Home Secretary this question:
Is he saying that it is right in a free society to detain innocent people without charge for the purpose of obtaining information from them?
His answer was categorical:
It has been made clear not by me but by the courts that that is a legitimate and necessary use of the power."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 56.]
I repeat again that I am well aware that in Strasbourg the Solicitor-General said that the Government would not use these powers for that disreputable purpose, but, unless Sir Leon Brittan was ludicrously wrong, the best that can be said of the Bill is that it provides the power to control that information, and all we can do is hope that no future Government will employ it for that purpose.
In our view, and in the traditional view of the House, it is unacceptable to legislate on the basis that powers may be provided, but there is no need to worry, for the Government will not use them in the way that is allowed. We have contended that, in place of such power, we should apply the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Secretary of State, who I thought would be here, but is not—I do not blame him for that; he has been here all afternoon—replied to our proposal with an answer which was prolix even by his usual standards:
under PACE the powers of arrest can be exercised only where a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that a particular offence has been committed or is about to be committed".
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, under the Bill, it is possible to detain an individual who is
suspected of being involved in terrorism in circumstances where one cannot prove, or does not have reasonable grounds to suspect, the commission of a specific arrestable offence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 10 January 1989, c. 295.]
It is worth while dwelling for a moment on what the Minister said. Once again, as so often is the case with Government Bills that the Opposition regard as severe infringements of liberty, simply to state the power in the Government's own language shows how wrong the position of that power is. The Minister said that the Government wished for powers, demanded powers, and would insist upon powers that allow them to detain a man or woman who there were no reasonable grounds to suspect had committed an arrestable offence—a man or woman who was not simply innocent because they had not been tried and proved guilty, but a man or woman against


whom there was insufficient information to mount a charge. Yet the Government insist that against such persons seven days' detention is essential.
The Under-Secretary went on to say that the powers of detention under PACE were "insufficiently strong". Apart from the issue of principle—putting aside the question of propriety, whether we should ever detain a man or woman against whom no charge can be made—two questions immediately arise from that answer. First, why do we need to detain for seven days a person who there are no reasonable grounds to suspect has committed an arrestable offence? The Under-Secretary of State has not answered that question, other than to say that he will "obtain information" which he did not give to the Committee.
6 pm
The second question which the Under-Secretary's answer requires is more fundamental. Is it ever right to detain for seven days a person whom one does not have reasonable grounds to suspect is involved in an arrestable offence? In a free society, the answer must be that such detention cannot be justified. It can only damage the reputation of any country which makes such a proposal.
If we are to have any sort of debate on this important question, time allows only the briefest of references to the two other questions about the Government's attitude to the Brogan judgment which I posed at the beginning of my speech. The Government have entered a derogation from the convention. I have made it clear that I well understand that the Government are wholly within the terms of their agreement and are entitled to make such a derogation. There is no question of the Government having acted illegally or unlawfully, or having broken or abandoned their commitment to the convention in general. Sovereign states would never become parties to such conventions unless such derogations were possible. The question is not whether the Government were within their legal rights— clearly they were—but whether they were just and wise to use their legal rights as they did.
Clearly the terms of the derogation—the notion that terrorism is now putting at risk the whole of the United Kingdom—are palpable nonsense. But I suspect that the Home Secretary will say that the words are no more than a technicality and that if there were to be a derogation it had to be in those terms. The important part of my question does not concern either the technicality or legality. It concerns the justice and wisdom of what the Government have done in terms of fundamental human rights. The Government have chosen to dissociate themselves from the convention in that particular.

Mr. Archer: Lest there be any misunderstanding, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the wording of the derogation is not a matter of technicality? Unless the Government can bring themselves and the situation within the rules they are not entitled to derogate.

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. and learned Friend, who is careful in these matters, will notice that I am almost as careful, and said that the Home Secretary would undoubtedly attempt to argue that the words are a technicality. If he does not, he will find it difficult to justify on the evidence of the language that the situation on which he relies operates in the whole United Kingdom. As I

understand it, to make the derogation he must make that point. I look forward to seeing whether he calls it a technicality, as I predicted, or attempts to justify the words in their literal sense and application to the United Kingdom, which I believe would be impossible.
I reiterate my basic point, with which I know my right hon. and learned Friend agrees, which is whether the Government were right in principle, wisdom and justice to make the choice which they were legally entitled to make. My view, which is the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is that, as well as being wrong in principle, to erode our commitment to the cause of freedom which the convention enshrines was also deeply unwise, because it damaged the cause which the Government claim to serve. When the Government attempt to cut funds to the IRA by attempting to have passed through the House a Bill which is specifically in part designed to achieve that objective, by taking their decision about derogation they are providing for IRA fund raisers a propaganda weapon of incalculable value.
The Government will say in the derogation that terrorists are having a profound effect on the life of the whole United Kingdom. Terrorists will say that the Government at Westminster are prepared to abide by the rule of law when it is convenient, but that, when it is inconvenient and the Government wish to detain men and women for seven days without trial or judicial review, they fly to the derogation, with all the consequences involved.
The third question, which I asked a quarter of an hour ago and which I repeat in slightly greater detail, concerns the Government's decision to press ahead with the Bill, although, according to their published statement, they hope to replace it with new powers almost as soon as it becomes law.
If we are to take the Government at their word, which I do, they still hope to arrange a system of judicial review which would provide an examination of the justification of detention after four days, thus bringing our law into line with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. The Government are by no means sure that they can achieve that end but I give them credit at least for attempting to being that alternative about. Until we know how they want to organise detention, it is palpably unreasonable to ask the House to pass a Bill which stipulates one form of detention about which the Government may change their mind next year.
The Government have known about the Brogan case for several years. There was a specific reference to it in the report on the prevention of terrorism published by Lord Colville in 1987. Yet the Government behave as if the ruling and their need to react to it came as a complete surprise towards the end of last year. After some confusion, which the Home Secretary will remember well and which I shall detail for him if he wishes, and some contradictory statements about when the Government could or could not make an announcement, whether they would have to derogate and whether the derogation would pe permanent, the Under-Secretary eventually sent a letter to members of the Committee. That letter, sent on 10 January, said in terms that the Government could not announce how they intended to proceed with the question of detention and the possibilities of a judicial review, and therefore with the necessity for permanent derogation, until the Bill becomes law, as the Government purpose, on 24 March.
The House is left in an absurd position. We are being asked to support a Bill which, if it becomes law, the Government will do their best to change almost immiediately out of all recognition. Simply in terms of good government, sensible management of business, courtesy to the House and demonstrating that they have a clear, concise and cogent line on civil liberties, the Government should have come to the House specifically describing which of the alternatives was likely to be the permanent feature of the legislation before they asked us to complete every stage of the Bill's consideration on the Floor.
This is an example of incompetence, but it is the sort of incompetence that invariably comes about through arrogance and a stubborn refusal to admit error and agree to rectify mistakes. If it is impossible—as we understand it, because of the opposition of the Northern Ireland judiciary—for a judicial review to examine the case of men and women detailed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, arrests should be made under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. That is the sensible as well as the principled response to the dilemma in which the Government find themselves. Support for our amendment would achieve that end.

Mr. Barry Porter: I listened with great care to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and I want to confine my remarks to two of his major points. He asked whether it was reasonable for the Government to derogate from the Brogan judgment and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, and to detain people in these particular and peculiar circumstances for seven days without trial or judicial review.
Although I was young at the time, as no doubt was the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, I remember that there were very strong draconian powers of detention during the second world war. I appreciate that we are not at war in the strict, technical sense of the word, but it is clear that the Provisional IRA is quite willing to use the phrase "armed struggle". If that phrase means anything, it means the use of force to obtain a political end. The IRA uses that phrase to all intents and purposes, if it is not a war, it is certainly a quasi-war. Given those circumstances and the use of that phrase by enemies of this kingdom, we are entitled to look at the realities of the situation rather than at the legalistic aspects. The reality is that we cannot deal with those people with the ordinary powers of the law.
It is naive in the extreme to say that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides enough power for the security forces and the intelligence services to provide the police with adequate information to bring certain people within the PACE regulations, under which there must be reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed or is about to be committed.
I accept that the intelligence services will be able to provide certain information to the police, but it might not be sufficient to allow the police to say that an offence had been or was about to be committed. However, I believe that there would be sufficient information for the police to detain in almost every case. I do not want to know what that information or intelligence is. I cannot believe that it is the end of the world if someone with terrorist connections and about whom there is intelligence is kept for no more than seven days.
Surely it is better to be safe than sorry. Surely the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook must consider the fact that more than 3,000 people have been killed over the past 20 years. Surely it is better that someone should be inconvenienced—and I do not diminish that inconvenience—by being detained without charge for that time, than that someone else on the mainland or in the Province is murdered. Is that such a price to pay? I think not.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that it was unwise to use the powers because there was a public relations aspect. Although he was not specific about this, he said that it might upset people in the United States of America or elsewhere in Europe and that it would in some way contribute to the funds now being channelled to the Provisional IRA. I suppose that that is possible. However, can the right hon. Gentleman imagine the effect on another part of the public—the citizens of Northern Ireland?
I was in Belfast last week. The most remarkable idea, suspicion or feeling was obvious there that the Government were in some way weakening and preparing to remove themselves from the Province. I believe that that is untrue. This Government, like previous Governments, have made it abundantly clear that they will stand by our co-citizens in Ulster. However, some people on the Unionist side of the community divide were saying that.
If the House accepts this amendment, we must consider another public relations aspect to the issue. People in the Province would say that it was more evidence that the Government are not determined in their fight against the terrorists. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook should examine his conscience. Even if he thinks that people should not believe that, that is what they will believe. The provision in the Bill to which the amendment refers is a sign of the Government's determination to use a weapon against the Provisional IRA and any Protestant paramilitary organisation which might fall foul of it; more generally, it is a weapon against the forces of violence. It is not too high a price to pay.
Please God that we return to a time when these provisions are not necessary. However, 20 years on from the start of this struggle, these powers are still necessary. It is infinitely better to be safe than sorry. It is better to be sorry that some people no doubt will be detained when in other circumstances they would not. However, I would be more sorry if someone was murdered, assassinated or maimed as a result of this amendment being accepted.

Mr. Archer: I hope that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) will forgive me if I do not immediately take up his arguments. I want to be brief because this is a very short debate. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me to voice a protest about the completely inadequate amount of time given for this Report stage by the Government business managers. They have brought this situation about.
I want to respond to only one of the three matters explored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but not because the other two points are unimportant. In fact, I agree with my right hon. Friend that his first question was the most important. But I have seized opportunities at other stages during our deliberations on this Bill to deliver my views on those two points. It is important that


something should be said in relation to my right hon. Friend's second point. The Official Report of this debate will be widely read internationally and many people will want to know whether hon. Members are urging the United Kingdom to be concerned about its international obligations.
There is an international consensus that terrorism is an international problem and that it must be dealt with on an international level so that those who seek their political ends by the use of violence will have no resting place or hiding place. On 15 July 1986 the Financial Times reported that Interpol spends 10 per cent. of its time on investigating terrorist offences. There were complaints from Conservative Benches when Ireland appeared to be dragging its feet in respect of the European convention on extradition, one of the major purposes of which was to deal with international terrorism.
The European convention on the suppression of terrorism agreed in 1977 was, very properly, ratified by the United Kingdom in 1978. It has now been substantially enacted into our domestic law. Action has also been taken within the EEC, although some people believe that the EEC is not primarily concerned with terrorism. The Trevi group of Justice Ministers has committed itself to a co-ordinated policy and the sharing of information to bring terrorists to justice.
All those initiatives have helped to make it clear that it is not simply terrorism that is international, but that law and order is international as well. Those initiatives show that terrorism will be fought at international levels. That means that nation states should accept some restrictions on their freedom of action and some limitation on their sovereignty in the interests of their people.
The other side of that coin is that we agree on international standards of human rights and limitations—which are proper limitations—on the power of the police and the investigating authorities, so that a citizen of any of the countries which are part of this consensus can expect certain standards from his or her Government. The nations of Western Europe have accepted that they are, and should rightly be, answerable before an international tribunal to their own citizens when there is a complaint about those standards. Those who invoke, quite properly, the international consensus to deal with terrorism, to pursue terrorists and to prevent terrorism are committed equally to that same international consensus from the other purposes—to the commitment to the rule of law.
I hope that not only will there be an agreement throughout the House on that principle, which can be read in the report by those in other countries, but that it will not be in issue that this country is bound in international law by the provisions of the European convention. There will be no issue that we were right to accept that obligation and to ratify the convention and that we were right to submit ourselves to the jurisdiction of the European Court and to the right of individual petition. I believe that that has not been brought into issue even by this Government, who have denied so many of the political propositions which we thought at one time formed part of the political consensus.
It is said that it is our right within the convention—we are entitled to derogate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, the right of derogation is part of the convention. It is not, however, something to be

embarked on lightly. It was not intended by those who drafted the convention, who agreed with it and who ratified it, that it should be invoked by a Government every time they found it inconvenient to abide by a ruling of the European court.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook reminded us, the Government have publicly proclaimed that the activities of the IRA fall within the wording of article 15, which provides that we are entitled to derogate
in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
If there is room for argument about the meaning of those words, it has to a great extent been resolved. We have the guidance of the European court in the Lawless case. The court said:
…in the general context of Article 15 … the natural and customary meaning of the words 'other public emergency threatening the life of the nation' is sufficiently clear; … they refer to an exceptional situation of crisis or emergency … which affects the whole population"—
not just the population of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, but the whole population—
and constitutes a threat to the organised life … of the community of which the State is composed.
If that was what the Government were describing in the words of their derogation, it ill fits some of the things which they have said about the success of those who are containing the IRA, which was said with the agreement of many of the Opposition and was something which we welcomed. There will be great rejoicing in the IRA at the wording which the Government have now publicly placed on record.
I do not intend to embark on any of the other issues raised by this debate, but, if that issue is questioned before the European Commission and subsequently before the European Court, I venture to predict that the Government will have quite a rough ride. I do not suppose there is much danger of it, but I would not like to be the advocate who had to argue the Government's case. The provision we are discussing is one which other Governments in Europe, who too have experienced terrorism, have found themselves able to live with. Our commitment to the convention should go out from this House to our friends abroad.

Mr. Mallon: I believe that this provision in the Act has caused more problems than any other, because it has been the most widely used part of the legislation, especially in the North of Ireland. The words of the former Secretary of State, Sir Leon Brittan, were quoted by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The former Secretary of State said in October 1983 that it was a legitimate and necessary use of power to detain people to obtain information.
One need only look at the figures to realise the extent of this appalling exercise. Sixty-nine per cent. of those held in the North of Ireland under this power of detention have been released without charge, and 91 per cent. of those detained in England, Scotland and Wales have been detained without charge. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) glossed over the point and said that it would be better if people were detained for seven days rather than that they should be killed because of the activities of those involved in terrorism. That is a spurious argument when one considers the figures, the law as it stands and what I believe should be one of the golden rules


of any legal and judicial process, which is that the purpose of the law is to administer justice and to protect the individual as well as society.
The figures speak for themselves, and there can be no doubt that what Leon Brittan confirmed as a fact is something which has continued until this day. It is known in the North of Ireland and readily admitted privately by the Army, by the police, by the people involved and by everyone in the community that the provision is used for that reason. If dogs in the street could talk, they would be saying the same.
Surely the Act was draconian and punitive enough without the Government involving themselves in abuses of it. I believe that the protections in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should be given in the North of Ireland. I mean not just the implications of the various measures under PACE, but the protection of the codes of practice, because that does not apply under PACE as it applies in the North of Ireland under the Northern Ireland order.
What, therefore, can we rely on for protection? Should we rely on the judges' rules, which are completely unstated and, I believe, not clearly defined by the judges or understood by them? The judiciary would be the first to admit that. Alternatively, should we rely on the codes of practice of the RUC, which were not given to this House, or the codes of practice of the Army, which, under new legislation, would be a matter for prosecution if one were to divulge them? There are no codes of practice for people detained under the Act, which is something which should and could have been put right by applying to those people in the North of Ireland the codes of practice of PACE. Unfortunately, that has not been done, so that there is no protection, because none is provided in any other way.
The reality of temporary derogation is that we cannot be a la carte: we cannot take what we like of European judgments and ignore what we do not like. We must abide by the rules. If we do not, we will be seen as acting as bad Europeans. We must ensure at all times that we have a proper supply of inverted commas in our pockets so that they can be put around such words as temporary, when we see how long temporary may be in this type of decision.
I believe that the Secretary of State has three choices in relation to the Brogan decision. He should obey the decision of the director of the European Court, he should change the laws so that they accord with those which exist in the rest of Europe, or he should simply derogate. I believe he has chosen the worst of all worlds. He has done something that will not help to resolve the problem. It will add to the feeling that, when it comes to dealing with the problem of justice in the North of Ireland and the choice between retaining the integrity of justice and the Government's commitments in Europe, they will opt to behave in such a way that not only shows contempt for the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights—the British Government played a central role in developing them—but demonstrates that they are prepared to pursue an atavistic attitude that is endemic to them. In the last analysis, that atavism will be one of the downfalls of the Government because it is destroying the integrity of the law and the integrity of justice, which must be the foundations of any free society.
6.30 pm
Apart from the contempt the Government have shown for Europe and its laws, it is intrinsically wrong for the Government to show such scant regard for the basic concepts of human rights. They are throwing them out of the window, but, sooner or later, there must come an end to repressive punitive legislation. Someone must call a halt because we are almost at the end of the road and, once we reach it, we must then row back up the river against the tide. The Bill represents one more waterfall on the way back to the type of normality that alone will solve the problems in the North of Ireland.
The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) made a dangerous claim when he said, I believe with some pleasure, that there was a war going on in the North of Ireland. The only people who want to believe that there is a war are those fighting it. For years the Provisional IRA has said that its prisoners should be treated as prisoners of war. Hence the problems in the prisons with people in compounds who are not treated as ordinary prisoners and who believe themselves to be prisoners of war. To confirm that what the Provisional IRA has said all along is correct—that the country regards itself as being at war—is most dangerous for the people of the North of Ireland. It is also dangerous when one considers that in the light of a publication today and considers it through the minds of those who are on the other side of the coin in the supposed war—those in the Army serving the Government.

Mr. Hunter: I expected that there would be more robust support for the Government's stance from the Conservative Benches, but the mantle falls on me.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) repeated what he has said in Committee about the need to avoid punitive and repressive legislation. Our essential argument is that the Bill is neither but gives the Government the powers necessary to combat an ugly situation.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) delivered his thesis—it is familiar to us and we heard it in Committee from his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—which must be rejected. Surely in Northern Ireland we are dealing with a unique situation. It does not exist in any of the other countries that are signatories to the European convention on human rights. The judgment that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to exploit to his political advantage duly acknowledges that the circumstances in Northern Ireland are unique.
The Government are in the unenviable position of having to seek to reconcile irreconcilable legal traditions. A variety of national legal traditions led to the composition of the European Court of Human Rights which must be reconciled by that court. The legal systems are not the same. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the Brogan case and said that, in other European countries, the equivalent to the magistrate plays a much earlier role in the interrogation and investigation process than is the case in this country.
I do not know what my right hon. Friend will say in reply to this debate. He may respond to the judgment in the Brogan case, but I fancy not. I suspect that he will ask for more time and that that request will be well received by Conservative Members. This is such a serious matter that we cannot leap to judgment and we should not try to score


cheap political points at each other's expense from it. We want to proceed in a judicial manner. We want to ensure that our procedures are acceptable to other European countries, but our circumstances and traditions are unique. We must ensure that we do not rush into making a judgment that will detract from our ability to combat terrorism.
The powers of arrest and detention enshrined in the Bill are needed to guarantee that we are able to combat terrorism. They should be supported because they are necessary for that purpose. It is also important that we do not rush into making a judgment about how to deal with the Brogan case.

Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke about the reasonableness of using the power of detention in any circumstance. He and other members of the Labour party have been consistent in arguing that the time for the use of such powers has passed and that they are not prepared to support their use.
Although there is no doubt in my mind that the powers in the Bill are a substantial infringement of a citizen's liberties, are draconian and unwelcome and that it is essential that they should be subjected to periodic scrutiny by the House, the case for retaining them within the prevention of terrorism legislation is powerfully made by the evidence of Lord Colville. That argument is most forcefully and compellingly put in appendix C to the report, which describes the events in the week beginning 25 October 1986 in Scotland. A number of people were held under the detention powers, as a result of which, at the end of that week, 10 individuals were charged with serious criminal offences and were convicted.
Apart from that example, the weight of evidence given by Lord Colville about the use that has been made of the powers by the law enforcement authorities is compelling. It is bound to carry weight with all who review these matters. We shall have to return to this question not only because of what has happened in Europe but because of the sense of repugnance felt by hon. Members about detaining people without the strongest possible arguments about the practical necessity for it.
I shall now turn to the second question posed by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. It is convenient to follow his example because it will enable me to be brief. I have been consistent about derogation from the moment that this problem arose. I have called upon the Home Secretary to seek some means of complying with the judgment and to interpose judicial scrutiny at an appropriate stage in detention. I said that, if he was not able to do that during the passage of the Bill, it would create—here I agree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—some international embarrassments. It will raise questions about our willingness to abide by the international rule of law and the provisions made for the international protections of fundamental freedoms and human rights.
The argument has moved on since the Home Secretary first addressed it. I listened with care to what he said in the debate on the timetable motion a week ago, and I have no doubt from what he said then that he and his colleagues are seeking means of complying with the ruling of the court in the Brogan case. I hope he will be able to tell us

that some means of complying with the judgment will be possible, although he said earlier that that is extremely unlikely before the passage of the legislation is completed. He and his colleagues are engaged in a quest for a means of complying with the judgment of the court. I hope that he can tell us that he is somewhat more optimistic than when he spoke on the subject last week, when he said that he was engaged in an uphill struggle. Those who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Britain would do well to co-operate with the Secretary of State in his quest because it is of great assistance to this country to be able to remain fully within the ambit of the convention.
I do not think that the consequences of derogation are as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) described them. The Labour Government in which he was Solicitor-General derogated from the European convention in 1978 on the issue of detention in respect of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. That derogation lasted until 1980 when the use of the powers in the Act were suspended. That was an unfortunate derogation, and many regretted that the Government of the day thought it necessary. However, that was the Labour Government's judgment and the House accepted it. The Home Secretary now judges it to be necessary. Unpalatable though it may be, we shall return to the issue regularly and frequently because we are not persuaded that it is impossible—although it may be difficult to do it now—

Mr. Archer: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: I wish to conclude, because I know that the Home Secretary wishes to speak, but I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Archer: Would the hon. Gentleman at least remind the House that, when the Labour Government derogated from the convention, they did so in respect of part of the territory of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland? They did not undertake to prove that there was a danger to the national existence of the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maclennan: I am not at all clear that, when the Labour Government derogated from the convention, they sought to justify it in the precise language that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has used. I have the terms of the note that was put before the Council of Europe, and it does not spell out the provisions in the manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. Be that as it may, the Government of the day thought that it was necessary, and that was not questioned. The Home Secretary has given evidence of his good faith and intention in this matter, and I hope that the House will support him in pushing to achieve the judicial review process that is necessary to maintain our position on the international protection of human rights. I deeply regret that so far he has not been able to do that, because that would have made his task with the House and the country much easier. I hope that, before the Bill leaves the other place, which may be in a matter of weeks, that will yet prove possible.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The debate has been quietly conducted, but the discussion on the amendment is about the risks that we are prepared to run with terrorism. The amendment would be prepared to run risks that are unacceptable. The House has again been searching to find a balance between the protection of the community as a whole and the protection of the legal rights of the individual. We think that the balance is rightly struck in the Bill, and that the amendment would tilt it unacceptable against the safety of the community.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) conveniently organised discussion under three headings. I agree that his first heading is the most important, so I shall deal briefly with the other two. The Brogan judgment did not say that it was wrong or illegal to detain an individual without charge for seven days. It could hardly have done so, because in France, for example, the limit for detention without charge is four months. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was right in what he said about the different legal positions.
The Brogan judgment said that a judicial mechanism needed to be interposed so that some independent person could review detention after a certain time. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I have been entirely open with the House and the Committee about this. I am quite clear in my mind that it would not be safe to leave the police without the power of detention. The nature of terrorism, which we all read about over Christmas and the new year, bears that out.
Of course we would have preferred not to derogate, and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was right when he said that this is not a subject to be taken lightly as a matter of convenience. We continue to look for a judicial mechanism; the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) gave a fair account of that quest. I cannot add to the information that I gave him on the subject last week. I said that there were three jurisdictions and that we could not have consulted judges on a hypothetical basis. Had we done so, we would probably have gone well astray, because the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights was not the simple rejection of the use of a power, but was on the proviso that I have mentioned.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook argued that in some way we should have held up the Bill until the position was clear. I entirely accept that the timing is awkward for the Government and the House, but the right hon. Gentleman left out of account the fact that, unless the Bill containing the detention power passes into law by 21 March, the present Act will expire and the power will fall. That could not be justified.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West dealt in some detail and quite legitimately with the grounds of article 15. His argument was somewhat torpedoed by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I am leaving out the question about a time of war, because I agree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). There are many reasons why it is a mistake to discuss this situation as a time of war, and we are not required to do so under article 15 of the convention. The relevant phrase is:
public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
We are all one nation and one people. Although the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West derogated for Northern Ireland alone, since the terrorist campaign began there have been in Northern Ireland nearly 3,000 deaths and over 30,000 injured and in Britain, nearly 100 deaths and over 1,400 injured. Recent reported events show the extent of the threat, and that d affects more than just one part of the Province or one part of the kingdom.
On the central point, it is our firm and considered view that in some cases—a small number—the police should have more time than the maximum available under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) was right on that. Terrorist investigations tend to be considerably more complex than the cases dealt with normally under That Act. I need not repeat the argument of Lord Colville on this point, and the different examples that he gave, or those given by my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee. However, those examples made the point, and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has not addressed them.
I can give two more examples. On 29 April 1986, the police arrested five people in a flat in Strabane and a search of the premises revealed two grenade launchers, two grenades, three rifles and a quantity of ammunition. An extension of detention was authorised to enable the police to await the results of forensic and ballistic tests and to question each man in detail about his involvement. On the fifth day of detention, as a result of this work, the police were able to charge all five men with a variety of terrorist offences. They were later convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.
My second example came within my time in office. We received information of the presence in this country, and in this part of the country, of people planning terrorist attacks on behalf of the Abu Nidal terrorist organisation. I allowed three days of extended detention. This led to further arrests. I authorised further detentions in respect of six of the suspects for the full five days permitted by the Act, and as a result, I was able to authorise deportation orders, on national security grounds, of all six people concerned. That is a clear example, for only by the use of the extension of detention power in the Act were possible acts of terrorism averted by the proper use of deportation procedure. It could not have been done without that information.
The case is clear, and it is reasonable to require that people detained in this way should have safeguards. They exist under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in this part of the kingdom. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh spoke about the situation in the Province, but as he knows that there are safeguards in place—there is not much secret about that—following the action taken after the Bennett report in 1979.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the Home Secretary for pointing out that there are technical safeguards. What safeguards for people held in Northern Ireland under emergency legislation are written into codes of practice or statute?

Mr. Hurd: I am talking about what is in place as a result of changes made after the Bennett report. There has been widespread discussion about the extent of those, and I believe that the situation is adequate.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, made the point—that


the legislation is essentially pre-emptive. It is designed to prevent acts of terrorism, and its powers are often exercised while terrorist crimes are being prepared. The fact that a terrorist is not charged does not invalidate the grounds on which the detention was made. In answer to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, there has to be an intention on the part of the police to develop their suspicion to the point where they have evidence to jusify charges or to consider applying for exclusion or, as in the Abu Nidal case, deportation orders. He was unfair in his quotations from my immediate predecessor, because my predecessor was talking, quite clearly, about the possible results, and not the purpose, of such investigation.
If I thought that there was no purpose beyond gathering intelligence, I would not authorise an extension of a period of detention. Often, the discussions that take place on a request for an extension revolve around that point. In some cases, preparations may not have gone far enough for charges to be brought, or the information available to the police may be too sensitive to be brought before a court, or it may not be admissible in evidence. The case for this power, which was not introduced by the Conservative party, remains valid. Under the law, such a power could not be and should not be used widely. It should be used sparingly, but because of the nature of terrorism, it is needed. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland on that point.
If we did away with this power, which would be the effect of the amendment, we would in a small number of cases, but a small number of important cases, be imperilling the public. We are not inventing this power—we are simply trying to prevent the Opposition from removing it. The amendment would put citizens at risk. Arguably the prime purpose of Government is to provide the necessary protection for our people, who are looking to us for that protection. We should not do anything that would withdraw or weaken that protection. Therefore, I advise the House not to accept this amendment.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary has been kind enough to leave me three minutes to offer our comments on his justification for his proposal, and I do so in the form in which I began the debate. First, I shall discuss the principle. The Home Secretary is at best ambivalent in his attempt to describe the real meaning and purpose of the powers. He said that detentions were made only when the police officer had a genuine wish to proceed, and the genuine intention of proceeding, with criminal charges. If that is the case, there must be many frustrated and disappointed police officers, for they are constantly making detentions under these powers which do not lead to prosecution. It is only reasonable to assume that, time after time, detention is made without any real expectation that a prosecution will follow in the case of the man who is arrested.
It is all very well for the Home Secretary to say that we did less than justice to his predecessor, but the quotations from that person were exact in every particular. The Home Secretary of the day, in introducing the extension and continuation of these powers, said that it was wholly legitimate, and approved by the courts, that these powers should be used either as a deterrent or in order to trawl for information. Mr. Barry Porter indicated assent. Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr.

Porter) nods, honestly and honourably, as he should, because he advocated use of these powers for exactly that purpose.
The Home Secretary must not, or at least should not, tell the House that the powers exist but will not be used in a way that most people regard as reprehensible, because if the powers are there and can be used for that purpose, there may one day be a Home Secretary less reasonable than the right hon. Gentleman. Who knows, Sir Leon Brittan may be rehabilitated and repainted back into the Cabinet photograph from which he has been removed, and may again adopt the view that he was open in adopting when he commended these powers to the House.
I am disappointed with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who is always on the side of liberty, but not enough to vote for it. In many ways, he demonstrated the position of a reluctant Liberal—a reluctant Liberal with a capital L and, today, a reluctant liberal with a small one—anxious to show that he has the libertarian qualifications, but unwilling to express them in the Division Lobby.
Much more important than the hon. Gentleman is the attitude taken by the Home Secretary to our reputation in the world. I did not make any point concerning public relations. Public relations in these matters are unimportant. However, I did refer to the general political reputation of this country as a genuine democracy, which applies the rules of democracy even when it is inconvenient to do so. That applies to our success in fighting terrorism as well as to our general reputation in the world. It is assumed that, by taking such draconian and arbitrary powers, the war against terrorism will be won.
It seems to us that, time after time, we are losing battles against terrorism. Genuine, honest and decent-minded people are worried about our real commitment to liberty and democracy. Unless we convince the law-abiding population of Northern Ireland that we are on the right side, we will not win the battle and, for that reason, we press the amendment.
It being Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant, to the order [23 January) and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made.:—

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 241.

Division No. 60]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Ron (Blylh Valley)


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Canavan, Dennis


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Battle, John
Clay, Bob


Beckett, Margaret
Clelland, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n amp; R'dish)
Cohen, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbett, Robin


Blair, Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boateng, Paul
Cousins, Jim


Boyes, Roland
Crowther, Stan


Bradley, Keith
Cryer, Bob


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cummings, John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Darling, Alistair


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Buckley, George J.
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Caborn, Richard
Dixon, Don


Callaghan, Jim
Dobson, Frank




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Colvin, Michael


Ashby, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cormack, Patrick


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Critchley, Julian


Bottomley, Peter
Curry, David


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)


Bright, Graham
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; Cl't's)
Day, Stephen


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Devlin, Tim


Buck, Sir Antony
Dorrell, Stephen


Budgen, Nicholas
Durant, Tony


Burns, Simon
Dykes, Hugh


Burt, Alistair
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Butcher, John
Fallon, Michael


Butler, Chris.
Fearn, Ronald


Butterfill, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forman, Nigel


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Sir Marcus


Carttiss, Michael
Franks, Cecil


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Freeman, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
French, Douglas


Chapman, Sydney
Fry, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Garel-Jones, Tristan

Doran, Frank
Mallon, Seamus


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marek, Dr John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martlew, Eric


Eadie, Alexander
Michael, Alun


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fatchett, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan, Rhodri


Flannery, Martin
Morley, Elliott


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fyfe, Maria
Mullin, Chris


George, Bruce
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Nellist, Dave


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, William


Gould, Bryan
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pike, Peter L:


Grocott, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prescott, John


Haynes, Frank
Primarolo, Dawn


Heffer, Eric S.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hinchliffe, David
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)
Reid, Dr John


Home Robertson, John
Richardson, Jo


Hoyle, Doug
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sheerman, Barry


Illsley, Eric
Short, Clare


Ingram, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Leighton, Ron
Strang, Gavin


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wall, Pat


Loyden, Eddie
Wareing, Robert N.


McAllion, John
Winnick, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Worthington, Tony


McLeish, Henry



McNamara, Kevin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Madden, Max
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Frank Cook.

Gill, Christopher
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Sir Hal


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mills, Iain


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gow, Ian
Mitchell, Sir David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Moate, Roger


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gregory, Conal
Morrison, Sir Charles


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Ground, Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Grylls, Michael
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Michael


Hannam, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Norris, Steve


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hayward, Robert
Paice, James


Heddle, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Pawsey, James


Hind, Kenneth
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Holt, Richard
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Price, Sir David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raff an, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Tim


Irvine, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rost, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew


Kennedy, Charles
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knowles, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Knox, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Latham, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Speller, Tony


Lee, John (Pendle)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin


Lilley, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stevens, Lewis


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McCrindle, Robert
Sumberg, David


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Summerson, Hugo


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maginnis, Ken
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Maples, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tracey, Richard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walden, George
Winterton, Nicholas


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Woodcock, Mike


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Warren, Kenneth
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Noes:


Wheeler, John
Mr. David Maclean and


Whitney, Ray
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Widdecombe, Ann

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 4, in clause 15 in page 10, line 5 leave out 'if necessary by force'.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Schedule 5

PORT AND BORDER CONTROL

Ms. Mowlam: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 47, line 43, at end insert
`and may not be a strip search (that is, a search involving the removal of more than the outer clothing.)'

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 26, in clause 22, page 15, line 15 leave out 'one-third' and insert `one-half.

Ms. Mowlam: We shall speak briefly on amendment No. 24, as we went into the subject at some length in Committee.
Opposition Members consider that strip searching as practised in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales is humiliating and degrading to women. We do not believe that it fulfils any meaningful security purpose. We do not wish to change the nature of intimate searches or to stop the security forces from being able to examine clothes; we understand the need for specific items of clothing to be examined when someone is going into or out of prison. We see no point, however, in strip searching as it now exists. We do not think that a visual examination of an unclothed man's or woman's body serves any valid security function, and we should like to know why the Government consider it necessary. Opposition Members would argue that there are alternatives such as rub-down searches, and that many mechanical instruments can be used without inflicting the humiliation of a strip search.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I do not want to be difficult, but I am
sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that amendment No. 24 is limited to examining officers under the port and border controls in schedule 5. The broad issues that the hon. Lady is discussing do not fall under the amendment.

Ms. Clare Short: I understood that we were talking about a right for examining officers to strip-search any visitor to the United Kingdom from anywhere else, or anyone leaving the country or crossing the border in Ireland. The general question of strip searching for anyone crossing those borders is what is at issue.

Ms. Mowlam: That is exactly the point that I am making. The Minister was correct to point out that the amendment relates specifically to port of entry, but we want to get across the fundamental arguments that we discussed in Committee, while—as my hon. Friend says—relating them particularly, on this amendment, to entry at ports into Northern Ireland or the mainland. It is the

principle with which Opposition Members are concerned.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is scandalous that men are prepared to use women to carry bombs, knowing full well that those women will be blown up? We must do something to protect such women against themselves.

Ms. Mowlam: It is scandalous for men, women or children to carry bombs, but I do not agree that this kind of strip searching deals with the problem. We accept the need for rub-down searches, examination of clothing and, when there is reasonable suspicion, intimate examinations. Can the hon. Lady explain how a bomb can be carried by a woman whose clothes have been taken off? It is the visual examination to which we object. We understand the need for searches when there is reasonable suspicion, but strip searches merely allow the humiliation and degradation of women.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: indicated dissent.

Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) shakes her head, but the present arrangement is ridiculous. An individual will be examined, but a pram containing a baby will not be. The Government's position is illogical and inconsistent. We are asking not only for consistency and logicality, but for the rights of women placed in such a position to be defended.

Mr. Hunter: Can the hon. Lady explain why a strip search is more humiliating for a woman than for a man?

Ms. Mowlam: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but if he reads the records of women who have been strip-searched in Northern Ireland he will understand why it is so humiliating. Six or seven male prison officers—in the main, prison officers are not female—will stand around a woman who has been asked to take her clothes off, chatting, gossiping and making rude comments about her body. It is not a question of security, as the hon. Member for Lancaster tried to suggest, but of degradation—and that is what we object to. We understand the nature of security but that is not what strip searching is about.

Ms. Short: As I understand it, the amendment applies to the strip searching of men and women. I say to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that there is no question but that women find the idea of being strip searched deeply offensive. Men make less fuss. I do not know whether men do not mind running around naked in front of each other and having their bodies examined, but most women find the idea deeply repulsive.

Ms. Mowlam: I am sure that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) will respond when he wants to.
Alternatives are available. I am sure that Conservative Members will remember that when the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) was directly concerned with Northern Ireland affairs, he said that he would investigate and consider alternatives to strip searching. The time to do that is now here.
There has been an improvement in security instruments, and if they are good enough for the House of Commons and airports they should be applied to prisons. There is no need for strip searching as it is done now.
Opposition Members are not alone in pressing such an argument. Many organisations that have studied the matter in detail also call for strip searching to be abandoned or changed. Those organisations include Amnesty International, A Christian Response to Strip Searching, the TUC, the Student Christian Movement of Ireland, the Irish Information Partnership, the National Council for Civil Liberties and the Government's own advisory body, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. The Prison Officers Association has called for a review of practices in prisons, both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I hate to be tiresome but the amendment has nothing to do with strip searching in prisons. It is exclusively related to strip searching by examining officers under the port control powers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I shall tell the hon. Lady when and if she is out of order.

Ms. Mowlam: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister's point highlights my argument. We are particularly concerned that the port powers can be administered by a customs officer or an examining officer. There is a host of individuals who may not have the training, experience or knowledge of prison officers. We are even more worried that such individuals may be involved in strip searching. We oppose strip searching in prisons; in relation to port powers it is even more worrying and threatening.
I am sure that the Minister will well remember the discussions we had in Committee about the standard of facilitie and rooms at many of the ports. We are anxious about the standard of facilities in prisons—I am sure that the Minister can stretch his mind to the anology—and even more concerned about those at ports. We are more worried when people are less protected and more open to abuse by people seeing what is happening.

Ms. Short: I am surprised that the Minister protests so much. We are talking about the power of examining officers—without needing to have reasonable suspicion—to take the clothes off any individual who comes into or leaves our country. The examining officers are entitled to strip-search anybody to find out whether he or she might have done something in breach of this legislation. "Welcome to Britain," we say to tourists. "We might force you to take off your clothes completely if we feel like it, if we spot you and pick on you."
We know that, when we give these powers to examining officers—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady and her hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) are taking this to extremes. The amendment refers to the removal of more than the outer clothing.
People have to take off rather more than a mackintosh—there is nothing about stripping naked

Ms. Short: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has not followed this subject closely. I shall describe a strip search. A woman is required to take off every article of clothing, including her underclothing, which is examined piece by piece by the examining officer. If she is menstruating she is required to remove her sanitary protection and have it examined, too. That is what we continually do in prisons in this country.
The amendment would prevent us from doing this to people who visit our country, or cross the border between the Six Counties of Northern Ireland and the 26 counties of the South, which is what many people who live in those parts do all the time. It is unbelievable that the amendment is unacceptable. It is serious enough to take the power to strip-search if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, but I can see a case for the Government doing so. Strip searching without reasonable grounds is giving examining officers a blanket power.
As I said, we know that the officers will not strip-search everyone. They will suspect certain categories of people—for instance, younger people of Irish origin. There are 80 million people of Irish extraction in the world, 40 million of them Americans. Examining officers tend to be suspicious of younger people from the Arab world—obviously, there has been a history of terrorist action in that region. They tend to suspect young people from Africa who might be sympathetic to the ANC and its struggle in southern Africa.
This power enables examining officers to instruct people to take off all their clothes without those officers needing to have reasonable cause for suspicion. I cannot believe how complacently the Minister interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) to say that, as this was not about prisoners, she should not be so concerned. It is even more intolerable that people visiting our country should potentially be subjected to this kind of treatment, and that there should be no restraint on Government powers.
I have studied strip searching is some detail. I visited Armagh gaol, where it started, but it is now spreading through all our gaols, and it particularly affects women prisoners. I must tell the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that I do not know why men do not find strip searching as objectionable as women do. However, we know from the protests that women find it deeply offensive, and that other women are offended by the thought of women being treated in this way. Remand prisoners are treated like this twice a day—it is a continual process of humiliation.
A woman who is determined to smuggle an object can smuggle it internally. We are given all sorts of assurances all the time by prison governors that they will never move to forcible internal searches. We now have technology that is capable of detecting anything dangerous—for instance, the bomb referred to by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). It would be more efficient to use sensitive detection equipment to pick up something that might be carried internally than to force people to take off their clothes and have their underwear and sanitary protection examined.
Strip searching is unnecessary. There are better ways, using the available equipment, of ensuring that nothing is being smuggled, than putting people through this humiliation.
The Government stress the money that can come into the United Kingdom from tourism, but with the value of the pound moving up so quickly we may hear less of that. In any event, the message will be something like this: "Welcome to Britain. If we feel like it, we can force you to take off your clothes before you come in. We can do so without having any reason to suspect you of anything. We are entitled to look to see whether you may be committing an offence under the Bill. After your holiday we can do it to you again before you leave the country."
7.30pm
Many hon. Members do not appreciate that, because the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic is not a natural or historical one, there are those who live near the border who cross it constantly. They cross it when they go to church. Some farmers have fields on both sides of the border. That is true of many members of my family. The Bill takes the power to strip-search any woman who lives in the border area. That could be done daily if the authorities chose to do so. None of us thinks that the situation has deteriorated to the extent that the powers would be used constantly on everyone, but they are being taken in the Bill. Unless the Minister is willing to accept the amendment—it should be acceptable to him—the warning is that our officials will be entitled, if they feel like it, to strip-search any man or woman who enters or leaves the country, or crosses the border between Northern Ireland and the 26 counties. They will be able to do that whenever they feel like it to search for information.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said that strip searches are unpleasant and that they should be avoided at all costs. There is something in what she says, but she must consider allowing strip searching within the context that we are discussing, which is not the ordinary one. The schedule provides for examination on arrival or on departure. The second paragraph sets out the situations in which someone can be searched on entering the country or leaving it. It is clear that those who may be searched will have given rise to suspicion among officers of Customs and Excise, the police and the security services. If they have given rise to the suspicion that they are involved in terrorism, the issue will have to be pursued.
We are talking of those who have not been able to give a satisfactory explanation of their movements to an officer who is responsible for the security of the people of the United Kingdom. That is why he will possibly proceed to a strip search. It is an extraordinary power to deal with an extraordinary set of circumstances. Terrorism is not a normal activity. If someone is suspected of terrorism, surely there are circumstances in which the power of strip searching, which the hon. Member for Ladywood dislikes so much, can be exercised. I am sure that no one would advocate that it should be exercised unless he or she feels that its use is absolutely necessary.

Ms. Short: Unless I have misread the schedule, the hon. Gentleman appears to have misdescribed the Bill. Irrespective of whether an examining officer has grounds for suspicion, he will have the power to proceed to a strip search. That is one of my complaints. There do not have to be reasonable grounds for suspicion. The examinig officer will have the power to subject anyone to that sort of examination.

Mr. Hind: This is where common sense enters into it. Paragraph 2(1) of schedule 5 provides:
Any person who has arrived in, or is seeking to leave, Great Britain or Northern Ireland by ship or aircraft may be examined by an examining officer for the purpose of determining—
(a) whether that person appears to be a person who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".

The paragraph then refers to exclusion orders. Sub-paragraph (c) refers to:
grounds for suspecting that any such person has committed an offence under section 8 of this Act.
The power that we are discussing must be built on top of all the other powers that have been given to the police and the immigration officers at the ports. It applies especially to those who come into the United Kingdom as immigrants who might be illegal or who might be bringing in drugs, arms or whatever. No officer will search someone for the sake of doing so. He will proceed to strip-search only if a suspicion is raised in his mind.

Ms. Short: Then let us put that in the Bill.

Mr. Hind: It is a bit late to do that.

Ms. Short: Ask the Minister.

Mr. Hind: We are talking of a power that is being given to deal with terrorism. It is there for all to see.
Under the Bill, an officer must satisfy himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not involved in terrorism. Under other legislation he has the same power to search. He will be able to search for drugs, for example. Is the hon. Lady saying that we should not allow strip searches in other circumstances such as those which involved drugs, for example? Is she saying that no member of the security services and no police officer will be allowed to strip-search for anything?

Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of common sense. He has developed an argument, however, and reached conclusions that lack common sense. He says that no officer would embark on a strip-search without having sufficient evidence that it was necessary. Is he arguing analogously that, of the 38,178 who were arrested in the past four years under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, there was specific information in relation to them all? Since the beginning of the PTA, 344,650 houses have been searched. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there was reasonable evidence in relation to each of those houses? That would appear to be the logic that he is deploying.

Mr. Hind: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to stay within order.
The hon. Lady advances a good argument, and she has put her finger on one of the extraordinary features of terrorism. The power to strip-search in certain circumstances is an extraordinary one that is intended to deal with extraordinary circumstances. It is not easy to secure evidence against alleged terrorists that will stand up in court. Witnesses are intimidated. They are frightened and they will not come forward. The consequence of that is the power to place exclusion orders. They are used where we know that there is evidence and that if the witnesses would come forward it would stand up in court. In dealing with straightforward criminal law, as with terrorism, a person who is arrested may be interviewed by the police to ascertain whether he will pass on information, under caution, that will assist in building a case against him. That is entirely normal. No one complains about that procedure when the police use it in dealing with ordinary crime.
When someone is arrested under the 1984 Act and he says nothing, and as a consequence there is no evidence against him other than that of witnesses or complainants who will not come to court because they are likely to be


intimidated, there will be complaints from Opposition Members if the accused person is released. We must examine our procedures within that context.
If we exclude the power to strip-search at our ports—it relates specifically to terrorism—we shall create an anomally. In some circumstances, we shall allow strip searches when there is a suspicion of drug carrying, for example, and in others, especially those related to terrorism, we shall not.
May I go on to show why, in some circumstances, we cannot allow that to happen? People who wish to bring in items or papers relating to terrorism will use a great deal of ingenuity to conceal them. It may be necessary to ask them—men or women—to remove their clothes so that their ingenuity can be discovered. The explosive Semtex is an interesting example. It is odourless and non-metallic and cannot be detected by the machines about which the hon. Member for Ladywood talked. If it was placed underneath clothing, or sewn into clothes so that it could not be detected by touch, a strip search would have to take place to discover it.
There are many similar examples. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has served with me on many criminal law Bills, could give examples of people concealing items—often drugs—in the body, either internally or in the body orifices.

Ms. Short: How is that relevant to a strip search?

Mr. Hind: That is the only way in which such items can be discovered.

Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Our amendment would not avoid intimate searches, so it would be possible to search body orifices. The amendment does not argue that clothes should not be examined. We have allowed for clothes to be passed out so that officers can look, for example, for items sewn into hems. We are trying to stop men's or women's bodies being visually examined, which we believe is illogical, irrational and counter-productive.

Mr. Hind: This is at the root of the problem. If someone conceals something within the orifices of his body, how else will it be found? The amendment would create a farce. A full strip search would be allowed under ordinary legislation, perhaps in relation to drugs. Does the officer at the port say, "Under the amendment to the schedule, I cannot search for anything related to terrorism"? Suddenly he will become interested in drugs and say, "I am strip-searching this person to look for drugs." If the port authorities are as devious as the Opposition suggest, they could do that without difficulty. The amendment would create inconsistency and, at the end of the day, nonsense.

Ms. Short: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would choose his words more carefully. Items that are carried internally are not caught by a strip search, so the hon. Gentleman has wasted much of his case on the possibility of people smuggling items internally. A strip search is not part of an internal examination. If people are determined to smuggle something, they can do so internally, so that making them take their clothes off will not be effective. Of course, if they are carrying nothing, it is humiliating.

Mr. Hind: I disagree forcefully with the hon. Lady. I have been involved in drugs cases where Customs officers, by strip-searching the courier coming through the port,

were able to remove drugs from inside the body orifices. Those drugs were seen as soon as the clothing was removed. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is talking about a full internal search, but I am not. I am talking, from hard experience of dealing with similar cases, about the common-sense way of doing it, and I believe that it is necessary to have a strip search.
7.45 pm
As the hon. Member for Ladywood said, the border between the Six Counties and the Republic is not a natural border. It is very long and impossible to police adequately, and people do not always cross it using roads. They go down many of the cart tracks that criss-cross the border. But the majority of the arms, explosives and equipment used by the IRA is brought into Northern Ireland via that border. Many of them are brought into the Republic from all over the world. People who cross the border immediately come under suspicion, and they are the sort of people whom sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2(1) are designed to catch. They must explain their movements—

Ms. Short: They live there. They go there in the ordinary course of their lives.

Mr. Hind: I appreciate that.
People who have an honest and legitimate explanation for their movements have nothing to fear. Anyone who is carrying on his business normally has nothing to fear from the schedule. But if people cannot give an adequate explanation, there must be further investigation. Common sense applies very much in this regard. It is nonsense for the hon. Lady to say that the people who live there and who cross the border regularly should be exempt from strip searches. Those are exactly the people who should be searched, if they cannot give a reasonable explanation. They must be asked, "If you have nothing to fear, why do you not go through the normal check points? Why do you cross fields or use cart tracks?"
This is an unusual power to deal with a difficult problem. Had it not been for the horrors and the disasters caused by terrorism, I am sure that the House would. not even consider such a power. But it is necessary, and I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment.

Mr. Steve Norris: Having heard the speeches of the hon. Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), one would have to be extraordinarily insensitive not to appreciate their argument. I do not know whether there is any value in pursuing the question whether men are less offended than women by intimate searches and strip searches, but I speak for most men when I say that I would find it a degrading experience which I hope never to undergo. I cannot believe that it is probably reasonable to say that it would be even worse for women.
We must start from that point. I have always believed that if someone is innocent, the sense, not just of shame and embarrassment, but of sheer outrage on being subjected to such an examination would be greater than almost any other experience at the hands of the Executive arm of the Government.
That is the inevitable prelude to my next point, which is that we must consider what the Bill exists to do and under what general power the power of search exists. The Bill provides the framework within which to deal with the


extraordinary and unique situation in the United Kingdom. Of necessity we convey to officers under schedule 5 wide powers to enable them to deal with an adversary who, on any logical interpretation, will use whatever processes, devices, tricks and methods of concealment are available to help him or her to achieve an evil and detestable object—the maiming of innocent people.
It is significant that the Bill never mentions intimate searches or strip searches, but simply gives officers the power to search. The hon. Member for Ladywood knows that well, because she knows the subject better than I do and I defer to her experience. Paragraph 4(2) of schedule 5 says that an examining officer may
search that person and any baggage belonging to him
in accordance with the powers and responsibilities vested in that officer under paragraph 2. That power must, deliberately, be wide and my first concern about the amendment—I do not say "objection", because the amendment does not justify that word; whatever else, it is clearly proposed in a spirit of humanity and concern for the rights of women—is that as soon as one qualifies a search and says that only certain parts of the body may be searched, or certain items of luggage or clothing, one immediately gives the terrorist—the only person with whom we are concerned—the avenue he seeks. The terrorist will know that he or she has the right not to be subjected to a particular type of search and, bearing that in mind, will devise an appropriate method of concealment.
The hon. Member for Ladywood mentioned the searching of a pram but she knows of the diffidence and reluctance of members of the security services about searching a pram and making a mother take her baby out of the pram and throw the clothing to one side to see what is underneath the pram. But she also knows it is a matter of great sadness to millions of women in this country and in the Province—that such diffidence has resulted in devices being carried in prams and those devices have caused death to innocent mothers and babies. My anxiety is that, the minute the power of search is qualified, in the way the amendment seeks, we tie the hands of the officers and that is inconsistent with providing the necessary power to ensure that a thorough search is carried out when it is needed for the examining officer's inquiry.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a fundamental frame that we have used in law when talking about restricting people's liberties or locking them up is to give power to the Executive to carry out those actions when there is reasonable cause. Would it not be better, if we are giving officers the power to strip off people's clothes, to provide that there must be some grounds for suspicion before that power can be used?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady has made a good point about the width of the powers given to examining officers. Were it not for the exceptional context of this legislation, the House would be well advised to examine that power in great detail.

Mr. Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Norris: I shall give way when I have finished my reply to the hon. Lady.
I do not believe that under the power given by the Bill to search to determine
whether that person appears to be a person who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this paragraph applies",
one can start with sufficient evidence for a prima facie case before one is allowed to search. We all know that in the context of normal customs investigations, customs officers who are experienced in such matters look at a queue of people passing through the green and red channels and occasionally they will ask a person in the green channel to stop and they will ask a few more questions than usual about his trip and what he is carrying. They do so for a combination of reasons, one of which is that such a random search shows others that it is not worth while to abuse the privilege of ease of passage that the green channel gives.
Another reason is that the officers have built up years of experience from which they can identify tell-tale signs that lead them to say: "I don't know what it is, but something about the person worries me. I may have seen him before and he is acting in a way I regard as suspicious." That is the basis on which an experienced investigating officer works. To define that in law other than in the broadest terms is genuinely difficult and we should be careful about that when drafting. None the less, that power is a necessary one to give to officers.

Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as dealing with Irish terrorism, which is the main stream of the Bill, the schedule also refers to other types of terrorism? We are dealing not only with Northern Ireland, but with international terrorists who come through our airports in situations such as my hon. Friend has outlined. That is why the powers are necessary.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend made that point when he raised the subject of drugs and the necessity for officers to have wide powers to search for drugs. The issue is the same, and the Bill is concerned with the prevention not only of Irish terrorism but of terrorism generally.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) for not having given way to him. However, I am delighted and flattered that he is taking such an interest in my speech. I trust that he will stay for the end of it, which will arrive shortly. I want first to make the point that the hon. Member for Ladywood knows that the Bill requires that a search of the person may be carried out only by a person of the same sex. I regard that to be as necessary as the hon. Lady considers it to be. It provides some protection from prurient interest and from exploitation of an intimate examination to which the hon. Members for Ladywood and for Redcar have both rightly referred. We should be adamant in ensuring that that provision continues.
The Bill is almost unique in our current parliamentary framework, in that Parliament renews annually powers that, wisely, it has not taken to itself in perpetuity. The rationale for that is that the situation in the Province changes each year, so each year the House endeavours to ensure that the restrictions we put on freedom of the individual and freedom of passage to and from the United Kingdom and across the sea is only as severe as is appropriate to the threat to the peaceful order of the country at the time.
The hon. Member for Ladywood introduced the idea that perhaps the searches could be carried out by machine. My understanding is that, sadly, that is not the case. I say "sadly" because I assure her that if satisfactory evidence were available that machines that could be applied externally were utterly foolproof and that examination for substances or objects could take place without the necessity for anyone to take off any article of clothing—inner or outer—I would want this provision removed from the Bill. However, sadly, I do not believe that that is the case.

Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main point is that most law-abiding people are prepared to accept some embarrassment if that means that the risk of them, their neighbours or relatives being killed is diminished?

8 pm

Mr. Norris: We all accept the intellectual logic of my hon. Friend's argument. He makes a reasonable point which, I hope, is the reaction of most honest people who are asked where they have been on holiday when they arrive back in this country with their perfectly lawful duty-free allowances.
I am prepared to accept that the hon. Members for Ladywood and for Redcar have reflected the genuine sense of outrage which not only women, but men, feel if an examination goes further than merely cross-questioning or further than a cursory examination such as one has every time one travels on an aeroplane, and involves taking off clothing and so on. I accept that that process involves indignity and that it is one to which we should never subject people without overriding reasons. Those overriding reasons exist in the context of the prevention of terrorism. As there is not at this stage a satisfactory technical alternative, those powers must remain until that technical alternative is available.

Ms. Mowlam: Our point followed a statement made by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) when he was a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office. He said that he would review the procedures in relation to alternatives. Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the Northern Ireland Office has carried out such a review? We are concerned because sometimes words are cheap, but the actions cost a little more.

Mr. Norris: I am not answerable for the promises or undertakings given now by my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who expresses exactly the point that I am seeking to make, although more succinctly.
Our aim is to prevent terrorism and to examine people who enter this country to determine whether they are bringing in with them explosives, weapons or any other items that they might use in the commission of terrorism. The aim is not gratuitously to offend either women or men. Although I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), I repeat that if I were satisfied that a satisfactory technical alternative existed which would mean that it was clearly and demonstrably unnecessary for anyone to remove any item other than rainwear, I should be the first to say, "Let us thankfully take the power out of the Bill." I believe that there would be unanimous support across the House for that view. However—when the hon. Member for Redcar reflects on this, I am sure that

she will agree that this is the case—there is at best equivocal evidence that such a technical facility exists, and at worst the suspicion that our technical expertise in that area is not up to the dangerous task in hand.

Mr. Heffer: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) since his return to the House. Having listened to some of his hon. Friends, it is a real pleasure to listen to him because he has a somewhat different and more humane approach. I take on board his honesty in this matter. I do not believe that he wants to see strip searching or any other type of searching that could cause humiliation. I believe that he is genuine about that, and I understand the dilemma that he is in—and frankly we are all in—on this matter.
Let us examine what happens in relation to stopping terrorists or potential terrorists from getting into other places. Nowadays it is clearly vital that we have measures of protection at party conferences. That is obviously the case for the party in government, but we in opposition also do the same—although up to a point I cannot understand why. We prevent, for example, people entering the hotels at which the hierarchy are staying. However, as far as I know, no one who enters the portals of the Conservative party conference is strip-searched. Of course, they are searched effectively, as we are. In fact, I get a bit fed up with it at times because the security people look under one's fingernails, under one's coat, up the bottom of one's trousers and goodness knows where else. To say the least, it can be slightly annoying, but one understands that it has to be done. However, as I have said, nobody is strip-searched.
Day after day, people enter the House of Commons. I well remember some events in the House before 3ecurity was tightened. I remember somebody throwing a smoke bomb—thank God it was not a real bomb.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That happened twice.

Mr. Heffer: Yes, there were two. I also remember a farming gentleman throwing something other than a bomb. It landed over here and made quite a mess. Rightly, efforts were made to protect Members of Parliament somewhat more effectively than they had been protected before, but nobody who comes to the House of Commons is strip-searched.
Those are three places where, despite strict protection, nobody is strip-searched—

Mr. Greg Knight: I have listened carefully to the lion. Gentleman's argument, and I am not sure whether he is making a good point. First, will he accept from me that each delegate who attends the Tory party conference must produce a security pass which has a photograph appended to it? That is a little different from encountering a couple of people dressed as farmers in a country lane in Ireland.
Secondly, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that police dogs enter the House before the House sits, and that they not only sniff out the Chamber for explosives, but go upstairs.

Dr. John Reid: The dogs come in when no one is here.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has made a good point. The dogs come in when nobody is here—apart from a few people walking about.
I agree that people coming to this country must have a passport, but if such people come from Northern Ireland, they are United Kingdom citizens. Although people may come here from another country by way of Northern Ireland, people from Northern Ireland are citizens of this country.
This is a difficult problem. I am not saying that it is easy. I am not arguing that we should do nothing because this issue is of no consequence; it is of consequence. However, I have always had a dreadful image of strip-searching. I have seen photographs and films—thank God I have not seen it done myself, although I was in the forces—of what we all know happened to the men and women who were stripped naked by the Nazis. We know of their terrible humiliation. The first thing that is done to humiliate a person is to strip him. There is nothing worse than being naked in front of several people. Dreadful things are done. We live in a civilised society. We do not use the methods of uncivilised people. If we did, we would cross the Rubicon from civilised behaviour. That is not acceptable.
It is about time we spent more money on getting machines to do searches. We remember the dreadful, horrible business of the plane being blown up. People from several companies came to me saying, "We have had machines for some time that would find that sort of thing, but they have not been used. They have not been taken on board." I do not know enough about the matter, but we should examine it and put some money into research to ensure that we create the appropriate machines. If we can go to the moon, we can surely do something to stop such humiliation.

Mr. George Walden: I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate. I am struck by one of the hon. Gentleman's points. He started speaking with perfectly humane motives. However, such motives can easily lead to sentimentalism and a confusion of categories. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Nazi analogy applied to us, whereas the problem is that we are dealing with people who have Nazi instincts. They are the killers, and we are trying to prevent them from killing. We must not allow one's justified concern about strip-searching to lead to a fundamental confusion of categories.
Secondly—I do not want to try the hon. Gentleman's patience—if we were to say "No, this is too abhorrent; let us stop strip-searching," what would be the practical result? It would be that people would take advantage of that to camouflage their terrorism more effectively.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman has reduced the argument to a simple matter. It is not a simple matter. I do not agree with the methods of terrorism and violence to solve political questions, but we cannot say that, in all circumstances, people who conceal weapons necessarily have Nazi tendencies. For example, the people in Europe whom we supported and provided with arms to fight the Nazis did much the same thing. The Nazis called them terrorists. We regarded them as freedom fighters. It depends on what angle one takes.
We are talking about methods that are used now. Whatever happens, the ultimate solution to the problems of Ireland—North and South—is a political settlement.
Violence by anybody on any side will not solve the problem—after all, we have had it for a long time. We must examine the problem from that angle.
I ask the House to support the amendment—perhaps with some reservations—because of the humanity involved and the fact that it will prevent humiliation. Many innocent people are affected. Powerful arguments have been advanced on that point, and they should be supported.

Mr. Sumberg: This has been one of the best debates on the matter that I have listened to. Some hon. Members have discussed this topic for a considerable time, both in Committee and in the House. I enjoyed the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). I was crouched forward because I had not heard him speak in the House since before the last election. It was good to see him back and to hear his speech.
All decent instincts have come to the fore in the debate. None of us can be entirely happy that we are to pass a piece of legislation that will allow strip searching. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, there is a history to the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said that it would not be right to be sentimental, but images of the past and of the present make one frightened that such things must happen. There can be nothing more humiliating for a man or a woman—I make no distinction between the sexes—than to be stripped before others, or even before one other person, to prove his or her innocence. I have never experienced it, and I hope that I never will.
Throughout the Bill's proceedings, I have said that civilised society faces a great challenge to all things that we believe in. Hon. Members have referred to many of them in this debate. All civilised values are under threat from terrorists. The hon. Member for Walton was right to say that there must be a political settlement. However, until there is a settlement of peace and until law and order are established, such a settlement cannot happen.

Ms. Short: I put that point to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) whose return to the House I, too, enjoy. The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) agrees that making someone strip off their clothes in front of uniformed individuals is oppressive and that none of us would like it. Does he agree that, if the power is necessary in some circumstances, there should be a requirement to show reasonable cause to do it? Under the Bill as it stands, an examining officer can do it to search for information. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that that goes too far?

Mr. Sumberg: That promotes various difficulties. If reasonable cause must be shown, it can be challenged. We are dealing with an emergency in which a decision must be taken immediately. We are relying on the good faith and good sense of the officer involved.
As I said, society faces a challenge. Over the past 10 years, terrorism has increased. More and more people are being killed and maimed. Examples are invidious. The fact that we must contemplate this legislation means that the terrorist has achieved some form of victory. That is the price that we have to pay.

Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman has discussed at some length and in the abstract the principles involved in some


of these issues. As a relative newcomer to the debate, may I ask him with no mischief intended to consider to what practical end strip searches are carried out? I ask in all innocence. Have any of the maimings been prevented by dangerous weapons and substances, detonators and so on being found during such strip searches? If so, to what extent? If not, to what end are we insisting on strip searches?

Mr. Sumberg: I do not have all the figures, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister does. Even if I could say that nothing has been found, it would still be reasonable to include strip searching, because it acts as a deterrent. It is a preventive measure against people taking the chance of importing explosives or other materials that can maim and kill. It works on the same principle as customs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest mentioned, when we may try to smuggle in something less dangerous. Not everyone is checked, but each of us knows that if we go through the green channel we may be challenged, searched and found out. As in other matters, I believe in the deterrent effect, although perhaps some Labour Members do not. Strip searching acts as an aid to fight terrorism.
I hope that we can look forward to the day when these measures are not necessary and when we have the technicality and science to avoid them. I hope that we are working on that. For a variety of reasons unconnected with Northern Ireland it is essential that people can travel safely. Until that day arrives measures of this sort are needed. I hope that it will not be long before they are redundant.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: First, I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is unwell and in bed. He is sorry not to be here to reply to this and a subsequent debate. Nevertheless, I am glad that the Northern Ireland Office is represented by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
This has been a good and far-ranging debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) said. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), I well understand the anxiety and distress articulated by the hon. Members for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Those fears are more theoretical than real, but to the extent that they are real they may require further consideration.
I shall focus on the rather narrow amendment No. 24 which requires careful consideration.

Ms. Short: That is what we have been considering all along.

Mr. Hogg: I heard that remark. I said that this had been a wide-ranging debate involving discussions on strip-searching in prison and elsewhere. We are talking about the exercise by examining officers of their powers at the port controls and it is on that that I wish to focus.
It is plain that many of the circumstances described are covered either by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes of practice, particularly by code C, annex A, or by sections 54 and 55 of PACE. Where a person has been arrested by the police and brought to a police station, which could happen under paragraph 6(4) of schedule 5, or where a person is arrested by the police under clause 14 and brought to a police station, the safeguards contained in sections 54 and 55 apply. For that matter the provisions

in annex A of code C also apply where a person is detained by the police in a police station. That is a power of detention which arises under the schedule, but which falls short of the exercise of a power of arrest.
As the hon. Ladies will know, page 64 of the code deals with strip searching and states:
A strip search (that is a search involving the removals of more than outer clothing) may take place only if the custody officer considers it to be necessary to remove an article which the detained person would not be allowed to keep.
So in many of the circumstances that we have discussed, the position is already safeguarded either by sections 54 or 55 of PACE or by annex A of PACE code C.
There remains a gap. If a person is detained riot by a police officer and not in the police station, the position is not covered by either of those two sections or by the codes. The same is true if a detention or an arrest is made by an examining officer who is not a policeman because, as the House knows, examining officers, although usually policemen, are not always policemen. There is a gap which has been identified.

Dr. Reid: As the Minister is discussing the difference between the theoretical and the real position can he answer my question to the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg)? In reality, rather than in theory, what has been the result of strip searches in terms of discovering anything that could be regarded as remotely dangerous?

Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that I do not have with me a detailed summary of the result of searches, and I would not wish to try to summarise what is clearly a large subject. I shall not try to answer that question because I do not have the factual information to enable me to do so.

Dr. Reid: rose—

Mr. Hogg: No, I have answered that question and I cannot clarify it further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I did answer the question. I said that I did not have any information. It may not be the answer that the hon. Gentleman wanted, but it is a perfectly clear answer, it is the best that I can give, and I give it.
A gap that requires further consideration has been highlighted. It is unattractive that, in the certain narrow circumstances that I have described, strip searching could take place without any of the safeguards that would have applied had the person been arrested by a police officer. Therefore, I should like to reflect on the matter to consider the extent to which further safeguards should and could be incorporated in the Bill. I will arrange for that to be done.

Ms. Mowlam: I appreciate the Minister giving way and acknowledging the obvious loopholes and weaknesses in this section of the legislation. When he refers to the PACE provisions, can he further reassure the House-he has already explained the weaknesses that exist about controls at ports—that the PACE provisions for Northern Ireland contained in statutory instruments currently before the House will include exclusions in relation to the prevention of terrorism as they have done in the past? May I assist the Minister by answering the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)? If the Minister had read the Hansard of the Standing Committee he would be aware that all that had been found from strip searches was perfume, £5, a couple of letters and a key.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will consider very carefully the hon. Lady's first point. I am grateful for the information that the hon. Lady gave about searches.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 5

PORT AND BORDER CONTROL

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 47, line 45 leave out
`if need be by force'.

No. 16, in page 48, line 3, leave out
`if need be by force'.

No. 17, in page 48, line 6, at end insert
`and he may, if necessary, use reasonable force for the purpose of carrying out his functions under this paragraph.'

No. 42, in page 48, line 9, at end insert
'and may, if necessary, use reasonable force for the purpose of performing those functions'.

No. 18, in page 48, line 35, leave out from first 'him' to end of line 36.

No. 19, in page 49, line 22, leave out
`if necessary by force'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Schedule 7

TERRORIST INVESTIGATIONS

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 58, leave out lines 22 and 23.

No. 21, in page 61, leave out line 36.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Clause 20

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 13, line 32, at end insert—
'(1A) A constable or examining officer may, if necessary, use reasonable force for the purpose of exercising any powers conferred on him under or by virtue of any provision of this Act other than paragraph 2 of Schedule 5; but this subsection is without prejudice to any provision of this Act, or of any instrument made under it, which implies that a person may use reasonable force in connection with that provision.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Clause 22

RESTRICTED REMISSION FOR PERSONS SENTENCED FOR SCHEDULED OFFENCES

Mr. Archer: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 15, line 15, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half.
The purpose of the amendment is to retain the existing position with regard to the remission of sentence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, so that by definition it relates almost exclusively to people serving sentences in Northern Ireland. If it will assist the Minister when he replies, I accept at once that on reflection, as the amendment is intended only to retain the existing position, we might have done better to move to delete the clause. I am sure that the Minister will not take refuge in draftsmanship, because the draftsmen will have ample opportunity during the discussions on the Bill to take it away to whatever dark recesses they inhabit, turn it into classical English and return it to us.
The Government are proposing to change the maximum period of remission from one half the sentence to one third. No doubt a casual reader of the Notice Paper—not the Minister, because he will have read it carefully—might say that that is the position in the rest of the United Kingdom because in the rest of the United Kingdom, give or take a few exceptions, the maximum period for remission is one third. "Why," a casual reader may ask rhetorically, "should it be different in Northern Ireland?"
The answer is to be found in the parole system. In the rest of the United Kingdom, normally a prisoner serving more than 12 months may earn remission up to one third of the sentence and then serve a further one third on parole. He may actually serve only one third of his sentence in custody. There is no parole system in Northern Ireland, and that is the reason for the difference in remission.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was Home Secretary, he introduced the provision for half remission in Northern Ireland. On 4 November 1975 he referred to a
prison population unnecesarily high because of the absence of a parole scheme".—[Official Report, 4 November 1975; Vol. 889, c. 238.]
That was true, and it will not be a blinding revelation to the House if I state that the effect of the proposal in the Bill will be to increase the prison population at a time when we all agree that there is a crisis of overcrowding in the prisons.
If the Minister knows anything about the situation in Northern Ireland, I am sure that he will agree that it is not unreasonable to try to get prisoners, particularly young prisoners, out of prison in Northern Ireland as early as is reasonably possible. I cannot speak with knowledge of the present position because I am a little out of date. However, when I knew anything about the prisons in Northern Ireland, they were operating as the Sandhurst of the paramilitaries. Young people in prison received training by the paramilitaries in the techniques of paramilitary activity. It is not unreasonable to want to get them out of prison.
An extraordinary aspect of the proposal in the Bill is that it runs completely contrary to the recommendations of the Carlisle committee. It recommended in paragraph 274 of its report that those serving sentences of less than four years should be eligible for parole after they have served one half of their sentence.
I would be the first to admit that we got this wrong in Committee. When the asymmetry was pointed out by Justice, at the suggestion of Justice we tried to restore symmetry by proposing the introduction of a parole system in Northern Ireland. On reflection, I accept that that was not the right solution. It would impose an impossible strain on the probation service, particularly when it is dealing with people who in many cases regard themselves as political prisoners. It is perhaps ironic that, when the present one half sentence remission was introduced, it was expressly stated that it heralded the end of the special category status. It was said that the two went arm in arm.
It cannot be said that the present system has been outstandingly unsuccessful. The reconviction rate for adult male offenders in Northern Ireland is 42 per cent. as against 57 per cent. in England and Wales. The reconviction rate for those convicted of scheduled offences


is only one in five. It is perhaps worth remembering that the crime rate overall in Northern Ireland is lower than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: When the right hon. and learned Member quotes percentages of those reoffending in terms of scheduled offences, does he accept the difficulty facing the authorities in convicting people of scheduled offences? Does he recall that, of the 177 murders committed by the IRA in my constituency, 92 per cent. have not been resolved through the courts by the due process of law? Therefore, he should recognise that percentages can be deceptive.

Mr. Archer: Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Statistics must be viewed with some reserve. I have always had a suspicion of statistics since I saw a document headed "The House of Commons broken down by age and sex." But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that arithmetically the same problems of conviction apply at both ends of the equation; just as it may well be true that there are people who commit scheduled offences and are not convicted a second time, there are those who have not been convicted the first time. Arithmetically the statistic evens out; and it is still significant and worth quoting that only one in five of those convicted a first time are reconvicted a second time of a scheduled offence when we consider the reconviction rate of 53 per cent. across the board for the United Kingdom.
No case has been made by the Government for the proposal in the first instance.

Mr. Norris: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to establish a disparity between arrangements in the United Kingdom and those in Northern Ireland. Will he comment on the effect on his argument of the 1983 announcement by the Home Secretary on policy towards remission on sentences for crimes of violence which, in effect, established that such criminals would serve a minimum of two thirds of their sentence? Would not the acceptance of his amendment mean that a prisoner on the mainland would serve longer for a terrorist offence than he would in the Province? Would that not be a worse disparity than he is suggesting currently exists? Does not the Bill make logic out of what is at present a rather illogical situation?

Mr. Archer: I accept that it is an illogical situation, and that the most logical way of dealing with asymmetry would be to have the same situation on both sides of the water. If we cannot do that, the best that we could do would be to have the same provisions for remission. It may be that we have set ourselves an insoluble problem, but what we would like to hear—I do not want to take up too much time because this is an abbreviated debate, the reason for which is to be laid squarely at the door of the Government's business managers—is the case for the Government's proposals. We discussed this in Committee, and I am bound to say that the reasons for the proposal were never made clear to us. Perhaps the most helpful course I can adopt is to sit down and invite the Minister to intervene at a fairly early stage to tell us the Government's case for their proposal and then we can debate that case.

Mr. Mallon: I believe that a most fundamental mistake will be contained within this Bill. for a number of reasons. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Ireland knows the potency of the gaol situation. Anyone with only

a cursory knowledge of Irish history will realise the way in which it has been changed not in the streets, not in the fields and not in the roads, but in the gaols.
I do not have time or the inclination to go back over the past, but I believe that we would all ask the question: if the action taken in 1916 had been different, would things be different now on the island of Ireland? If, in the recent past, a broad view had been taken within the prison service, would we have had the trauma of the hunger strike and the effect that that had and is still having in Northern Ireland and throughout Ireland? When we talk about prisons, we are talking about probably the most sensitive area of life in Northern Ireland, which has had and no doubt will have a substantial bearing on what happens in future. I believe that one of the keys to a solution to this problem lies within the prisons and the approach to them.
8.45 pm
I spend quite a bit of time talking to young people in the prisons, be they Loyalists or Republicans, and invariably the same sort of attitude comes through. They say, "What are we doing sitting here for 15 years when other people are out enjoying themselves? Why have we become the martyrs for spurious ideologies when, in effect, the world is still going on outside?"
s
I have no doubt that, rather than keeping people in gaol, getting people out is the way in which we should be moving. It has been seen since the early 1980s that, when people have been released back into the community in a spirit of consideration, that permeates its way down through the community—right down into that person's family and street. It has had a remarkable effect, as I have seen in my constituency. It is for that reason that the godfathers of violence—the people who run the paramilitary organisations—are afraid of the situation in the prisons being eased. It is there that we are making the fundamental and crucial mistake.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) asked what the Government's reasons are for the Bill. The only reason given in Committee was that it would act as a deterrent. If anything has been proved over the years, it is that prison does not deter those people who are highly charged and motivated ideologically. The given reason does not stand up.
I should have thought that what happens on the streets, in the towns, and in the villages in Ireland shows that if, one treats the prison situation in a hamfisted way, we will end up with trouble.
Sir Leon Brittan, the former Secretary of State, made mistake after mistake about prisons and was told time after time that he was building up something which would have disastrous effects. Arrogance, however, got in the way of his powers to listen, and we ended up with the most traumatic situation, one for which we are still paying. Many of the young people in prison today would not be there had it not been for that terrible period surrounding the hunger strikes and deaths in prison.
I again ask the Government to listen to the view of the people who live in Ireland—because they know instinctively and see it in their everyday lives—that this is the wrong path to take.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West pointed out that the parole situation in Ireland is not the same as in the rest of Britain or the Republic of Ireland. The parole system does not exist, because the probation board would not be in a position to fulfil the functions that


such a board does in other places. People are sentenced against a background of emergency legislation, such as the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Diplock courts. It has been sought to put a normal face on an abnormal type of process, which leads to conviction and a process which of itself is doing damage to the cause of finding a solution in Northern Ireland.
Another anomaly is that of scheduled offences, which were discussed at great length at Committee. There are unlimited examples of people who commit a scheduled offence being convicted under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 for an offence which was patently nothing to do with paramilitary activity are unlimited. This clause takes no cognisance of that and makes no allowance for it, but simply ploughs along a mistaken road.
Probably the most damaging part of the clause is the problem that it creates for young offenders. Northern Ireland has at present a large number of young offenders, because of the socio-economic situation in which they must live. We shall see a situation developing where young people who are sentenced are committed for civil offences to a young offenders centre, but, if they come under the heading of this clause, will find themselves serving their sentences out—for an offence which patently was not a scheduled offence in the first place and which was being served in a young offenders centre—under the temporary provisions Act. For that reason, the clause is a great mistake.
Unless we can reach the stage at which young people are convinced that the system of law and justice not only punishes them but protects them, we are fighting a losing battle. The problems will simply demand another piece of legislation next year, or in five or 10 years. Where does that lead? Unfortunately, the unholy spiral continues.
Presently, the prison population in the North of Ireland is going down. That is one of the remarkable things about the Bill; that, at the time when the prison population is going down, we are about to extend the length of sentences to keep more people in prison. It is clear from the treatment of life-sentence prisoners and Secretary of State pleasure cases, how an imaginative, charitable approach, which is based on good judgment tempered by that quality of mercy necessary when dealing with prisoners, has had an effect. We are curtailing that effect in a brutal, unthinking manner.
During the past eight years, how many people committed to young offenders centres have subsequently been charged and sentenced for scheduled offences under the emergency legislation? I asked that question in Committee, but I did not get an answer. I hope that I shall today, because this is a crucial point. I do not think it is good enough to say that the Northern Ireland Minister is not here so the figures are unavailable. I put that question on record in Committee, and it is the Government's job to provide those figures. Unless we have those figures, we will make a decision in the absence of the necessary information.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will be aware that, in the United Kingdom, the peak age for offending is 15 years for both sexes. A third of all reported crimes are committed by people under the age of 16. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that

those 5 per cent. who commit 70 per cent. of the crimes for which conviction has been obtained—the recidivist element—almost inevitably had an early association with the criminal justice system. His argument that more should be done to keep people out of prison would find favour in all quarters of the House. It is welcome that the prison population in Northern Ireland is reducing and that, in the United Kingdom, the total of reported offences is reducing.
It is a fatal admixture to go on to deduce from the oft-quoted theory that prisons are merely universities of crime that we should not deal severely with sentences for terrorism.

Mr. Mallon: indicated assent.

Mr. Norris: I note that the hon. Gentleman is nodding, so I will not labour the point. Suffice it to say that the public would be outraged if they felt that those convicted of crimes of violence and crimes demanding sentences of more than five years were not to be kept in prison, on the grounds that their continued detention would allow them to practise their criminal skills.
Everybody who deals with crime and the judicial system accepts that, to some degree, prison is a university of crime. I do not believe that any serious attempt should be made, however, to exclude serious crimes of violence from the due process of the law and the due sentences of the court.
In the absence of parole, the real inequity is that since the announcement in 1983 by the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, a terrorist convicted of an offence in the United Kingdom will serve two thirds of his sentence in prison, whereas in the Province it is possible that he will serve only one half of his sentence. Surely that is inequitable. The Bill will rectify that omission.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: For much the same reasons as have been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), I cannot commend the amendment to the House. We need to be clear about the nature of what we are doing.
First, the provisions are not retrospective; they are prospective only. Secondly, they apply to scheduled offences in respect of which sentences of five years or more have been imposed. It will be helpful to remind the House of the classes of crime that fall within the list of the scheduled offences. They are murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated burglary, robbery, membership of a proscribed organisation, and explosives, firearms and hijacking offences. One can understand at once that they are offences that are capable of being the most serious kind. For the purposes of the Bill they must attract a sentence of five years or more.
The purpose of the Government's change in the law, as set out in the Bill, is to reduce remission from 50 per cent. to one third. In answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), that brings the situation in Northern Ireland broadly in line with that in Great Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest rightly said, the position on parole has changed substantially as a result of the statement made in 1983 by the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan. He made it plain that, normally, parole will not be granted to offenders who are convicted of offences of drugs or violence which have attracted sentences of five years or more. As a general rule in such cases, parole will not be


granted. Consequently such people must serve either two thirds or nearly two thirds of the sentence imposed by the courts.
If we accepted the amendment and left the present situation unchanged, we would have a bizarre and unacceptable state of affairs. People convicted of terrorist-type offences in Great Britain would serve longer than those convicted of similar offences in Northern Ireland. That cannot be right. It is against that background that the Government have introduced the proposals in the Bill which will make persons convicted of offences in Northern Ireland serve, broadly speaking, the same period of imprisonment as will be served by persons in Great Britain convicted of like offences. That is right.
I have a personal regard for the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). We served on the Standing Committee for a long time and I know his personal integrity. However, in this matter I cannot agree with him. We are dealing with people who have been convicted of abominable offences, for which long sentences have been imposed by the courts. The idea that people convicted of such offences should leave prison after having served only half the sentence that the court thinks appropriate makes no sense and is abhorrent to most people who reflect on it. I make no apology for saying that the criminal law is, at least in part, about punishment. That is a perfectly proper part of the criminal law.

Ms. Mowlam: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I shall not give way, because we must finish by 9 o'clock. Deterrence and retribution are also perfectly proper parts of the criminal law. I see no reason why we should not say to people convicted of serious terrorist offences for which they have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, "You will have to serve a substantial part of the sentence imposed by the court." To tell them that they will have to serve only 50 per cent. of the sentence makes no sense. Two thirds is wholly right and anything less would be wrong.

It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [23 January] and the resolution this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the remaining amendment moved by a member of the Government.

Schedule 8

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 64, line 4, at end insert—

'(4) In section 14—

(a) in paragraph 5, for the words "section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984" there shall be substituted the words "section 14(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989"; and
(b) in paragraph 6, for the definition of "the terrorism provisions", there shall be substituted—


'"the terrorism provisions' means section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and any provision of Schedule 2 or 5 to that Act conferring a power of arrest or detention.".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Order for Third Reading read.

9 pm

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In commending the Bill to the House I propose to be brief, not least because the Bill and its predecessors have been scrutinised in considerable detail in this Session and on previous occasions. If time permits, and with the leave of the House, I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if any points require further clarification.
We need to try to define the truth of the matter. The plain truth from which the debate must start is that we are likely to face the threat of terrorism for some time to come. That threat is most acute in Northern Ireland where more than 3,000 people have been killed since the troubles began. However, as the tragedy of Lockerbie reminds us, the threat is not confined to Northern Ireland or to the affairs of the Province. Terrorism threatens us all and no person, however young or innocent, can be said to be safe.
We should be failing in our duty if we did not take such steps as we properly can to meet this assault on democracy. That was the view of the Labour Government in 1974 and 1976 and in 1978, when they passed the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. It remains our view today. I entirely reject the idea, now apparently the official policy of the Labour party, that the ordinary powers of Law are sufficient to meet the exceptional challenge and threat of terrorism. Nobody who has had or now has direct responsibility for these matters believes that the ordinary powers of the criminal law are sufficient. That fact may be regrettable, but it is true.
The reputation of the Labour party is on the line. Opposition Members proclaim their hatred of terrorism. They must give us a practical expression of that assertion. They must give us the statutory powers that every Government since 1974 have deemed necessary. If they will not or cannot, they will be judged by their failure.

Ms. Mowlam: There has not been any disagreement on the need for a firm stand against terrorism. There has been no disagreement on the need to protect the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain from the threat of political violence or on the need to bring the paramilitaries to justice.
In moving the Third Reading the Minister in some ways misled the House, because there has been clear agreement on the goals. However, there is a fundamental difference—we heard it on Report and in Committee—about the most effective method of attaining those goals. I ask my hon. Friends to vote against Third Reading not because there is any disagreement on the ends or the goals but because there is disagreement on the means.
We oppose the Bill for many reasons, and in view of the many arguments that we have heard, I shall comment on only three. The first is that the Bill is ineffective in tackling terrorism. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told the House that this is a prevention of terrorism measure, rather than a punishment of terrorism measure, which is what the Minister suggested it is. In that case, the Home Secretary must justify the 1,784 deaths that have occurred in Northern Ireland since the temporary provisions Act came into force. It is unacceptable for the Government merely to point to the existence of terrorism as the justification for the Bill. The test of any legislation must be its effectiveness and what is the evidence for the


effectiveness or the success of this legislation? All we have is the level of deaths—1,784—that have not been prevented.
In previous debates, the Government's argument, backed by Tory Members, has been that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act works like preventive medicine. We believe that the Government's medicine is far from preventive. We would argue that it seems to make the patient's disease worse. Far from effectively combating terrorism, its major achievement has been to alienate large proportion of the Northern Irish population. Far from being effective, it is counterproductive.
Under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act a total of 30,178 people have been arrested and released without charge in the past four years. Over 344,000 house searches have been carried out since the Act was introduced, and they increased by 29 per cent. between 1986–87 and by 100 per cent. in the first half of 1988. Those figures suggest not prevention of terrorism, not winning over the population of Northern Ireland to the cause of peace, but alienating people—achieving the exact opposite of what the Act set out to achieve. Terrorism can be effectively defeated only by undermining support for terrorism in the community.
With this legislation, the Government are trying to out-terrorise the terrorists. We must instead try to understand people's motives for supporting the terrorist force, however weak. Is it hard to understand why a family who have had their front door smashed in with a pick axe and their sitting room floor taken up with a pneumatic drill by the Army in a fruitless search will be less than co-operative with the security forces? Is it difficult for Tory Members to appreciate why children who have seen their parents searched in a reasonably rough fashion by the RUC grow up being distrustful of or doubting the system of criminal justice? The Act has been high on repression and low on results. Therefore, it is not working effectively.
The second reason for our opposition to the Bill is that it represents an unacceptable erosion of civil liberties. I understand that in a democratic society a balance has to be struck between individual rights and the power of the state to fight terrorism. I accept that that is a difficult balance for the Government to achieve. However, under the Act, it is far too easy for the Government to suspend the normal workings of the criminal justice system, to reduce the rights of citizens and to heap more and more exceptional powers on to the security forces. It is far more difficult, but far more effective, to address the fundamental causes of terrorism—something that the Government are not doing with this legislation. The Minister acknowledged that a military solution in itself is not sufficient. We have to address the root causes of the problems of Northern Ireland.
The Government have fallen into the trap of dealing with the symptoms of terrorism without properly and effectively tackling its causes. We argue that the Government fail to understand that terrorism can be defeated only by winning the hearts and minds of the overwhelming majority of the population in Northern Ireland. Every time the Government tighten the screw of security, every time there is a further act of suppression against the majority of people and every time that

democratic rights are denied, we argue that support for the solutions to the Northern Ireland problem becomes more and more difficult and the defeat of terrorism all the less likely.

Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Lady suggests that the rights of the majority are being suppressed. Will she expand on that assertion?

Ms. Mowlam: Given the numbers of house searches and of people detained without charge, the legislation appears to be working in the opposite direction. The majority of people believe that their democratic rights are being denied and that the ways in which they could be defended are in fact working against them. An Act designed to prevent terrorism is therefore creating an alienating environment and the opposite situation to that which it was intended to achieve.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Surely the hon. Lady is not suggesting that the majority of people in Northern Ireland believe that their rights are being denied?

Ms. Mowlam: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. The prevention of terrorism legislation affects both communities and both sides of the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland. Those people can be stopped and searched day in, day out, and can be stopped on entering Northern Ireland. The community does not want to live in those conditions. There may be some satisfaction with the present legislation, but the impact on daily life affects the majority of the community.
Conservative Members will acknowledge that it is difficult to strike a balance between liberty and security. It is difficult, for example, to tell a woman whose husband has been shot dead by terrorists that the people suspected of the murder must have their rights protected. That may seem a heartless response which it is impossible for the wife to comprehend. However, Conservative Members should not lose sight of the fact that there is a two-way process. Civil rights include both sides of the community. If we care about the mother whose husband has been shot dead by terrorists, we must also care about the mother of Michael Tighe who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was shot by the security forces. Unless we accept that civil rights are a two-way process, we shall not acknowledge the importance of civil rights and of the need for the criminal justice system to be seen to give legal redress to both sides of the community.

Mr. Maginnis: I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would clarify the point that she was making a moment ago. I agree that we should have sympathy with victims' families irrespective of which side of the community they come from and of whether they are victims of terrorist killings or of accidental killings or misjudgments by the security forces. Will she explain what she meant when she illustrated her argument by quoting the case of Michael Tighe and explain the connection with the prevention of terrorism Act?

Ms. Mowlam: I gave two examples to try to prove my point. First, we can feel sympathy with a woman whose husband has been shot dead by a terrorist. Our hearts go out to her immediately, and we realise that it is difficult for her to understand when Opposition Members talk about civil liberties. But we should also consider the mother of Michael Tighe, against whom there seems very little


evidence. It appears that he was in a barn, in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was shot by security forces. Out hearts must also go out to that mother, who may find it equally difficult to accept that Conservative Members are willing to sell his civil liberties down the line. We must take into account that civil liberties are a two-way process, regardless of the origins of the case.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be thinking of the parents of the Army lads killed at Ballygawley, who had to spend Christmas without them. But, whether we think of them or of the mother of someone killed by a terrorist, we should legislate not on the basis of emotional stories or historical prejudice but on rational fact. We are here to prevent terrorism, but the Bill will not do that. It is ineffective, it erodes civil liberties and it may have the opposite effect to that which is intended.
My final objection is to the way in which the Government are making the existing Act permanent. That clearly signals to the people of Northern Ireland that the Government lack a precise or positive strategy for their future, and that what has been acknowledged since 1974 as a temporary suspension of normal democratic conditions has now become long-term legislation. We are sending a public message to the Irish people that the current level of violence is here to stay. What clearer message could there be that it is no longer the United Kingdom Government but the men of violence who are setting the agenda for Northern Ireland?
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will live to regret the time when we made the prevention of terrorism Act permanent. It is no good the Minister saying that there will be an annual review. Opposition Members know what that means: Northern Ireland business will be debated late on Thursday night, marginalised, and there will he no requirement for a Committee stage and debates such as this in the House as would happen if the legislation were renewed every five years. Surely that is the least that we can do in view of the lives that are lost in Northern Ireland.
In Committee, the Minister acknowledged that when a Bill goes on the statute book it becomes far more difficult to change or to repeal. In the 1984 debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said prophetically:
Can the House really be sure that when the new Act expires, some time in 1989, it will not immediately be replaced by yet another version, which may be scheduled to last even longer or may even be intended to be permanent, but which may still be called temporary? A six-month Act was finding a permanent place on the statute book for powers which the Home Secretary"—
it was the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) at the time—
describes as wholly unacceptable and inimical to our tradition of civil liberties."—[Official Report, 25 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 1013.]
We have outlined three of the many reasons why we consider that the Act will not achieve the goals that both sides of the House would like to see.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) put it clearly in an earlier debate when he said that, if we wanted to evaluate the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, we must ask, "Does it prevent terrorism? Does it work towards peace in Northern Ireland?" It fails on both counts, so we shall vote against it.

Mr. Hind: I find it sad to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlem), who said that the Labour party would vote against the Bill. The public will find that difficult to understand.
This is one of the most important Bills that I have discussed in Standing Committee. It makes Britain a safer place in which to live, and protects the public from those who would take up arms against the state and kill and maim for political purposes. That is an honourable cause which should commend itself to all hon. Members and the public.
I shall take up one point made by the hon. Member for Redcar. She said that we should not introduce legislation to prevent terrorism because one group in the community in Northern Ireland will feel that it works against it. That is a fatuous argument that falls to the floor when closely examined, because that group is as protected against terrorism as every other section of our community.
If we take the line that we should not legislate because one group will feel offended or aggrieved, those who kill and maim will be able to hide among the legitimate, honest, straightforward members of the community and not be brought to justice for their terrible crimes. We have a duty to protect those innocent people and ensure that the terrorists are brought to book.
Terrorism is extraordinary. I agree with the hon. Lady and many of her hon. Friends who opposed some aspects of the Bill. We are forced to take extraordinary measures to protect the community in which we live. The Bill is designed to last only five years because the House recognises that it contains extraordinary measures. In the past, temporary provisions Bills were introduced because of the serious nature of the measures that they introduced into the law of the United Kingdom.
I say to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland that the Bill does not deal only with Northern Ireland. When the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill was introduced in 1974, hon. Members probably thought that it related only to Northern Ireland. However, circumstances are different today.
Since the early 1970s we have seen the rise of international terrorism. It was brought home to us forcefully in the recent Pan Am disaster at Lockerbie that we must take international terrorism seriously. For the British public, this legislation has not merely an Irish dimension, but an international one.
The Bill provides the police with extraordinary powers to outwit, outmanoeuvre and uncover the terrorist whenever possible. Recently, careful policing probably resulted in saving the life of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Clearly, a jury at the Old Bailey thought that a group of people were setting out to assassinate him. That is a typical example of legislation being used to detain them and provide for forensic examination of their clothes and hands to produce the necessary evidence to convince the jury that they were guilty of conspiracy to assassinate the Secretary of State.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends were in the Grand hotel in Brighton when a bomb exploded that was designed to assassinate the entire Government. Again, the PTA was used to uncover a series of cells and terrorists who were actively trying to operate a bombing campaign in our seaside resorts. The Brighton explosion was an example of the campaign working in part.
We have seen the searches that have been carried out at airports. The finest example of that was provided by the El Al jet at Heathrow airport, where a middle eastern terrorist was happy to give a bomb to his pregnant girl friend, which he know would blow her and 300 other passengers to smithereens in a Boeing 747, irrespective of his feelings for her or his child. He was prepared to take that course for the simple reason that there was a political advantage to be gained. Extraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary responses from the House, and I believe that the Bill is adequate to deal with such circumstances.
The powers of arrest and detention for seven days are important provisions, but I have no doubt that we shall re-examine them in the light of the comments of the European Court of Human Rights. All members of the Committee considered the provisions extremely carefully.
The relevant powers of checks at our ports include detention for 12 hours, examinations and strip searches. These are important provisions to ensure that terrorists who enter and leave the country are detained and necessarily brought to justice. Exclusion orders prevent the IRA from organising cells and continuing its bombing campaign againt the mainland population. I support exclusion orders without shame, in the knowledge that I am carrying out my duty in protecting my constituents. For confirmation of that it is necessary only to ask the relatives of the victims of bombing campaigns on the mainland whether they consider it necessary that there should be exclusion orders. Such orders are not made by Cabinet Ministers because they do not have information that individuals in Northern Ireland are involved in terrorism. They know, however, that the witnesses who could convict them will not come forward because they fear persecution and threats of violence to them and to their relatives.
We must satisfy ourselves that we can prevent terrorists from coming over to the mainland. It is not a satisfactory approach but, unfortunately, it is the only one that is available to us to deal with the problem. Again, it is an extraordinary measure to deal with an extraordinary problem. I hope that all my hon. and right hon. Friends will vote to secure the Bill's Third Reading.
For the first time, we have a Bill that will enable us to attack in their pocket the terrorist, his banker and all those who are involved in collecting and retaining money for the propagation of terrorism. If we attack the terrorist's pocket, he will not have the means to buy guns and bombs to perpetuate his campaign. In that way we shall restrict the activities of the IRA and like organisations and of international terrorism when we catch their representatives on the mainland.
This is probably the most important Bill with which we shall deal during this Session in seeking to ensure the safety of our fellow citizens. Let us vote for it against the background of the Battersea bomb factory and the tragedy at Lockerbie. I am sure that such happenings will remind us of the importance of what we are doing when the House divides. I am sure also that my right hon. and hon. Friends will proceed in the full knowledge and satisfaction that they are doing the right thing. They will feel that in their

hearts when they think of those who died and their relatives, especially those at Lockerbie. I commend the Bill as a move forward in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Mallon: We are running out of time and many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief.
I hang my two arguments on the debate about derogation under article 15 on the grounds either that we are at war or that there is an emergency threatening the life of the nation. Have we ever considered the effect on the morale and psyche of the people against whom the Bill is aimed of stating that they are waging war or creating an emergency that threatens the life of the nation?
It is a matter of concern to those of us who live in the north of Ireland and know those people for what they are that we are telling them that they are capable of waging a war against Britain or of creating an emergency that would threaten the life of the nation. It is not just any old war but one that has gone on for five times as long as the second world war. Is it any wonder that people are saying—this is part of Provisional IRA support—"Look at how the lads have kept it going for longer than Hitler, longer than the Kaiser, longer than Korea, or Vietnam, or Afghanistan or the Iran-Iraq war"? That is the type of morale booster that is given to the very people against whom the Bill is aimed. That is what they need.
The irony is that, despite everything, what the IRA is short of on the ground in the North of Ireland are street issues. This issue suits them down to the ground. They are telling the people of Northern Ireland on both sides of the political divide that they can go on for another 20 years—that would be eight times longer than Hitler kept the war going. How many times longer than Korea or Vietnam would that be? That is a massive booster for the morale of those engaged in violent activity for their own political ends.
Not only is derogation central to clause 14, but it is central to the search for peace in the north of Ireland. For that reason alone, it is a massive mistake.
My second argument is that the measure of any society is its ability to retain its high standards in justice and legal practices, in the police service, in the Army and in its dealings within that society so that not only does it punish the person who has transgressed but it protects the innocent person as well. By passing the Bill and other such legislation, we throw away those high standards. Instead, we work to the hidden agenda written by those who organise the paramilitaries. We are being led by the nose down a path where those high standards, which many people have fought to preserve, are being thrown out at the whim and according to the strategy of the people against whom the Bill is aimed.
Let us not forget that that is nothing new. Since partition in 1921, when the North of Ireland was formed there has never been a day when emergency legislation has not been in force. If, after so many years, we are still doing the same thing and still trying to solve the problem in the same ways—ways that have failed since the state was formed—it is time to ask the fundamental question: is there another way?
I believe that there is. If we continue in this way, and if we could transport ourselves to a Monday night 10 years from now in the House when matters have not improved, violence has continued and the war that the Goverment


have now determined is taking place is still taking place, we would ask what would happen then. What will the Government do then? How much further will they go down the rake's progress of trying to make legislation be what it was never intended to be? If we go further down that road, what steps shall we introduce then? The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will advocate internment without trial, but that has been done and has failed, too.
Shall we reach the stage when the Provisional IRA and the men of violence bring the Government to the point where they have nowhere to go in terms of legislation, the Army or the police, or will the Government, or a Minister, shout "Stop!" before it is too late and think again about whether there is a way other than the one that has failed consistently since the state was formed? We have had the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, Diplock courts, internment, the supergrass system, the removal of the right to silence and the removal of the freedom of the press, and the open electoral system has been tampered with. Those are only a few of the actions that have been taken, so where do we go now?
I make a prediction—which is always dangerous in politics—that in 10 years' time this war will still be continuing, because the right weapon is not being used. The right weapon is not repression and legislation like the Bill because it is clear as a pikestaff to anybody who wants to see clearly rather than to indulge in the self-righteousness and attitudinising that we have seen from Conservative Members day after day and the posturing and indulging in squelchy sentimentality, however sincere, about what is happening in the North of Ireland, that the Government should take a cold, hard, clear look and ask themselves "Where do we go in 10 years' time?"
The Government have exhausted all the measures that can be used. The Under-Secretary shakes his head; no doubt he will tell us about further measures. They will probably include hanging, and there will probably be more mistakes. I beg hon. Members to think before they go any further down that path. Somebody will have to put the North of Ireland together again, and it will not be hon. Members but the people who have to live there—people of whatever political or religious persuasion. They will not achieve that on the basis of the Bill because the north of Ireland cannot be put together again on that basis. We must create a north of Ireland based on peace, justice and compassion. It must bind wounds rather than make them, it must integrate our society rather than alienate it and it must build a new society rather than more new prisons.

Mr. Barry Porter: It appears that we are all against terrorism—so I am told. It appears that our ends and goals are all the same and that we all want to take a firm stance against terrorism. I am sorry to say that I have heard little from the Opposition tonight that leads me to understand what they mean by a firm stance. I apologise for having missed part of their contributions, but I was told that their first objection to the Bill was that it was ineffective. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) said that 1,784 people had been killed in Northern Ireland since the Prevention of Terrorism (Emergency Provisions) Act 1984 came into force. That is clearly true. She went on to assert that the Bill had made the disease worse. What evidence is

there for that, apart from a belief? She went on to say that the Bill and the Act were counter-productive. How can she assert that without evidence? Has it not entered her mind that the position could be—and in my judgment will be—worse?

Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed my point. He can assert what he wants, and I can assert what I want. He cannot disprove my statement. The legislation has been on the statute book for 14 or 15 years, and if it is not working, surely it is time to look at it afresh.

Mr. Porter: I cannot prove a negative any more than the hon. Lady can. I am asking her to consider that, on all the evidence available, it is certainly a possibility from her point of view, and a probability from mine, that without the powers that are available under the current legislation, the position could have been a good deal worse—

Ms. Mowlam: Prove it.

Mr. Porter: If the hon. Lady is willing to accept that as a possibility, can she and her hon. Friends take the risk of allowing the police and the security services only the ordinary powers available under the law in that extraordinary situation? I have no responsibility in this matter and with the greatest possible respect to the hon. Lady, neither has she, except in an alternative role. It is not a risk that I would wish to take.
When I think of the intelligence and information available to successive Secretaries of State and other Ministers, not one—from any party—has been willing to surrender the powers that they now have. That information is not available to me, and that intelligence is not available to the hon. Lady. However, perhaps she might think—as I think—that if people as intelligent, honest, decent and honourable as those who have held such positions in the past are not willing to take the risk, that she should advise her hon. Friends that they should not take that risk either.
The hon. Member for Redcar went on to say that the Bill is an unacceptable erosion of civil liberties. Certainly, the legislation would be an erosion of civil liberties in an ordinary and normal United Kingdom and in a normal and peaceful Ulster, but neither of those situations exists. There is murder and mayhem in Ulster and on the mainland. The erosion of civil liberties is a matter of judgment. It is there for those who care to look, but to me it is not unacceptable if it helps in any way to deal with the problem.
I repeat what I said in one of our earlier debates: by voting against Third Reading, the Labour party will give a message to the men of violence which is simply that the alternative Government of the United Kingdom have thrown in the towel and do not wish to take a "firm stance" against terrorism. I have not heard tonight that there is anything more to be done about terrorism or that there are any more methods to employ against terrorism. The Opposition have merely attacked the Government's stance.
In conclusion, as the hon. Member for Newry arid Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, of course this is not the only way to deal with the problems of Northern Ireland, and of course political arrangements can be made and political persuasion used. Although he and I would probably disagree about the arrangements—the hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that—not everything has yet been


tried. However, whatever those political activities may be, they must be paralleled by a clear determination on the part of the United Kingdom Government, backed—I hope—by every Member of the House, that terrorists must be deterred and defeated. If that takes the 10 years that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, so be it. In the meantime, he and others in Northern Ireland, with the proper backing of everybody who is interested in the Province and in the unity of this kingdom, should give any talks and negotiations their full backing. In the meantime, the terrorists—the minuscule minority within the Province—must be shown that the House is intent on their defeat.

Mr. Maclennan: The Labour party's opposition to the Bill seems to be based upon the fallacy that, because it cannot of itself prevent terrorism, it is not necessary. Alas, every time the House has considered such measures since the original legislation was introduced by a Labour Government in 1974, it has come to the unpalatable conclusion that, although they constitute an erosion of normal civil liberties, they are necessary. The House will come to the same conclusion tonight, and it will do so on the best evidence available to it, which is not the speculation of individual hon. Members but the careful scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill by a man who has been slighted by Opposition Members. I refer to Lord Colville. He has looked closely at all the provisions of the Bill and their working. Although he has differed from the Government in certain respects, notably in regard to the continuance of exclusion, he has recommended that the measures be retained.
It is right that the legislation be put on a new footing. It is a reversion to an earlier arrangement that prevailed when the Labour Government were in office, that the Bill be subject to annual renewal. It has not been helpful that the Bill has been wrongly presented as a piece of permanent legislation. It is not permanent legislation. It is subject to positive renewal by a vote of the House. It must have continuing scrutiny. I am glad that Lord Colville has agreed to do in future what he has done in the past. The House will not accept the continuation of the measures for one day longer than they are seen to be necessary.
It is unfortunate that the Government have not been able to respond more promptly to the judgment of the European court in the Brogan case. As with the Labour Government, the present Government's position has been greatly strengthened by the fact that the measures had not been held to run counter to the provisions of the European convention on human rights to which we are a party. That has helped to buttress international understanding of the necessity for what we are doing.
It is possible to take the necessary step to provide judicial interposition to scrutinise the detention beyond two days of those who are held under the provisions of the Bill. It is the Home Secretary's intention to seek such a measure as quickly as may be. We shall look to him to be as good as his word.
I take some satisfaction from the fact that the Bill is capable of being amended in part by statutory instrument. If certain provisions which we shall agree tonight are no longer seen to be necessary, they may be dropped. It is

right to look at all aspects of the Bill separately and in the round. We shall have carefully to consider each year the operation of the exclusion and detention provisions.
It cannot be said that the general background of terrorism has greatly improved in this country or in the rest of the world since we last debated these measures. Alas, the case for again implementing these exceptional measures is no less strong than it was the last time we considered them. The attitude of the Labour party is no more comprehensible against the background of continuing terrorism and the need for a response which cannot be provided by the provisions of our ordinary law.
That being so, I hope that the House will give the Home Secretary and the Government the support that they seek, for the greater the strength and resolution of the House in the face of these threats to our civil order and civil liberties, the greater the impact of a unified response to it.

Mr. Norris: I shall be brief, because I should like to allow others to have their say.
I was singularly ineligible to take part in the earlier stages of the Bill, but I have welcomed the opportunity to engage in these deliberations at this late stage. I should like to place on record during a debate on legislation involving the Province of Northern Ireland the respect and affection in which the House held my predecessor in the constituency of Epping Forest, the late Sir John Biggs-Davison. He was that unique combination of Catholic and Unionist. He was a man of many contradictions, of firm principle and unshakeable integrity; he lived as a member of the late Airy Neave's shadow team in Northern Ireland under the constant shadow of terrorism and terrorist violence, and he faced it bravely and with his accustomed sincerity.
The new powers in the Bill significantly improve our ability to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland, particularly the financial powers. Let no one underestimate them. The House has deliberated on the merit of attacking the drug pusher and drug runner where it really mattered—not just imprisoning those who were caught, but getting at the funding of that evil empire. The powers in this Bill will allow that power to be used against terrorists.
I am as concerned as the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) that a Bill of this sort should be for an indefinite period. It is not, as she asserts, a piece of indefinite legislation. She knows well that the Bill is subject to a regular annual review wholly or in part. [Interruption.] I have both preceded and followed the hon. Lady in this House and if she believes that the House will ever consider amending the Bill late on a Thursday night when there is no interest and everyone has gone home, as she described it, she severely under-estimates the House of Commons and the importance that it will attach to dealing with the crucial affair of the security of Northern Ireland. She said, "Let us not trade emotional stories about Northern Ireland." Many Conservative Members greatly regret that the Labour party's early clear commitment to the prevention of terrorism, as evidenced by its introduction of the temporary provisions Act and support for it in 1976, has been diluted into a rather emotional reaction to the reality of terrorism.
I commend the Bill to the House as providing the Government with the necessary powers to deal with these exceptional circumstances and this exceptional evil.

Mr. Maginnis: I find little in the Bill to which I or my party would object. Living as we do in Northern Ireland at the coal face, we recognise the effect that the prevention of terrorism Act has had on reducing the ability of the terrorist to operate there.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) referred to 1,784 people who have died in the 15 years since the prevention of terrorism legislation was first introduced. I have not had an opportunity to check that figure, but I accept it. It means that on average more than 100 people have died at the hands of terrorists each year over the 15 years. However, the hon. Lady failed to point out that, before the introduction of the prevention of terrorism legislation, 1,100 people died in just three years. Therefore, I must assume that some good has come from the prevention of terrorism legislation over the past 15 years because the rate of deaths has been reduced by about one third.
It is important that I record the aspects of the Bill about which I am concerned. My first point must always bother someone living in Northern Ireland. It relates to the exclusion element in the Bill. We tend to see that element as a discarding of the threat from this part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland. It there is reasonable suspicion about someone entering Great Britain, the vast resources which can be concentrated on trying to detect that person's motivies should be utilised instead of simply shipping the problem back to Northern Ireland which has has to endure the brunt of terrorism for nearly 20 years.
I am also worried that there is a vague suggestion—and I hope that it is only a vague suggestion—that the Government may not continue to derogate from the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. That would be a mistake. It is necessary to be able to detain suspect terrorists against whom there is reasonable suspicion for a period which will allow the police to carry out inquiries—for example, forensic inquiries—which are often necessary to ensure that prosecution can be pursued successfully through the courts.
The most disturbing feature of the Bill is that we have not looked carefully enough at schedule 1. I am sorry that we have not had a chance in Committee or on Report to debate it—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke for quite a while. I hope that he will realise that I have less than two minutes to speak. Perhaps he will allow me to put my case.
In so far as we vaguely define the Irish Republican Army as one of the relevant organisations under schedule I, we do the Bill a disservice. The Irish Republican Army refers to the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA. If we are serious about encouraging people to adopt a political position, we should have eliminated the Official IRA from the list in schedule 1.
For almost 15 years they have not been involved in terrorism, but they have formed themselves into a political party—one with which I disagree, but I am a democrat—called the Workers party. I believe that it is wrong that the Government should be entertaining them one day in Stormont castle and the next day proscribing them under schedule I to the Bill. I would ask the Minister, when the

Bill becomes law, to consider de-proscribing that organisation and thus encouraging terrorists to move to use of the ballot paper only.
It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [23 January] and the resolution this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 134.

Division No. 61]
[10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Grylls, Michael


Amess, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Ashby, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Baldry, Tony
Hannam, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bottom ley, Peter
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Harris, David


Brazier, Julian
Haselhurst, Alan


Bright, Graham
Hayes, Jerry


Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; Cl't's)
Hayward, Robert


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heddle, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Burns, Simon
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butcher, John
Holt, Richard


Butler, Chris
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Howard, Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)


Carrington, Matthew
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cash, William
Hunter, Andrew


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Irvine, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Jack, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Critchley, Julian
Kennedy, Charles


Curry, David
Key, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Emery, Sir Peter
Latham, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawrence, Ivan


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fearn, Ronald
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Li I ley, Peter


Fookes, Dame Janet
Livsey, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


French, Douglas
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maclean, David


Gill, Christopher
Maclennan, Robert


Glyn, Dr Alan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gow, Ian
Maginnis, Ken


Gower, Sir Raymond
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maples, John


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Ground. Patrick
Maude. Hon Francis




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boyes, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Battle, John
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Beckett, Margaret
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n amp; R'dish)
Buchan, Norman

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Miller, Sir Hal
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mitchell, Sir David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moate, Roger
Squire, Robin


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stern, Michael


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Stevens, Lewis


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Sumberg, David


Mudd, David
Summerson, Hugo


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Norris, Steve
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thurnham, Peter


Paice, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patnick, Irvine
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Trippier, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trotter, Neville


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Price, Sir David
Walden, George


Raffan, Keith
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Redwood, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Renton, Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Rhodes James, Robert
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wheeler, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Whitney, Ray


Roe, Mrs Marion
Widdecombe, Ann


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rost, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Rowe, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Woodcock, Mike


Ryder, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sackville, Hon Tom
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, David (Dover)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Sims, Roger
Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Buckley, George J.
Janner, Greville


Callaghan, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)



Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lamond, James


Canavan, Dennis
Leadbitter, Ted


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Leighton, Ron


Clay, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Clelland, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Loyden, Eddie


Cohen, Harry
McAllion, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Corbett, Robin
McGrady, Eddie


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKelvey, William


Cousins, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Crowther, Stan
McNamara, Kevin


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cummings, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mallon, Seamus


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Darling, Alistair
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martlew, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Dobson, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Doran, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morley, Elliott


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mowlam, Marjorie


Eadie, Alexander
Mullin, Chris


Fatchett, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Nellist, Dave


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Fvfe, Maria
Primarolo, Dawn


Galbraith, Sam
Quin, Ms Joyce


George, Bruce
Radice, Giles


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Reid, Dr John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Richardson, Jo


Gordon, Mildred
Robertson, George


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ruddock, Joan


Grocott, Bruce
Sheerman, Barry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Short, Clare


Haynes, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hinchliffe, David
Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)
Soley, Clive


Holland, Stuart
Spearing, Nigel


Home Robertson, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hoyle, Doug
Wall, Pat


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Worthington, Tony


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Hume, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Ingram, Adam
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

House of Commons Services

Mr. Speaker: I have selected amendments (a), (b), (e) and (1). I suggest that we have a general debate, and then I will call the hon. Members concerned to move their amendments at the end of it.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move:
That the Second Report of Session 1987–88 from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on Access to the Precincts of the House (House of Commons Paper No. 580) be approved.
Towards the end of 1987, the House passed a resolution which invited the Services Committee to consider control over access to the precincts of the House, and in particular to consider whether the numbers of Members' personal staff with such access should be reduced, bearing in mind the pressure on the capacity of the facilities of the House.
The catalyst for this resolution was the suspension, at the end of the previous summer recess, of Mr. Ronan Bennett, a research assistant employed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). But the inquiry conducted by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, which has led to the report that we are debating tonight, was not directly concerned with that issue. As the House will be aware, the Sub-Committee has considered with great care and in great detail a wide range of proposals for controlling access to the House and has made a number of nicely judged recommendations.
I should like to thank the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and his Sub-Committee for their work. I fully support their report, which was unanimously agreed by the Services Committee, and I commend it to the House. If the right hon. Gentleman is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I know that he will wish to outline the detailed recommendations of the report and the reasons behind them. I shall be brief, therefore, particularly as I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in this short debate.
Broadly speaking, the report's recommendations can be divided into two categories: those that are merely advisory and recommend that the security authorities should consider possible courses of action; and those which would, if the report is approved tonight, mean tangible changes in practice in the near future.
The advisory recommendations in the report ask the security authorities to consider such points as the possible introduction of machine-readable passes, random physical screening of pass holders, requiring pass holders to wear passes, and the designation of the area around the Chamber as restricted to Members and House staff. Traditionally, Mr. Speaker, the security of the House is your responsibility, but the Committee felt that it might be profitable to study the suggestions that I have outlined. Whether or not they should be implemented is entirely a matter for you.
The other, more tangible recommendations in the report fall into four main categories. The first is those limiting the numbers of research assistants and the use of Table Office and Library facilities by research assistants and temporary secretaries. The second is those designed to limit the activities of commercial lobbyists. The third is

those concerned with freezing the number of passes in circulation and making more effective the control of them, making sure that passes are returned promptly by those who no longer need them, and ensuring a regular change of design.
Finally, there are recommendations on arrangements for Members' staff, most notably that the number of Members' staff who may hold photo passes should be limited to three, with the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee able to recommend to the Services Committee any increase for individual Members where exceptional circumstances justify it. I should like briefly to comment on this recommendation, which I know some Members would find irksome.
Let me say at once that the Committee is not proposing a limit on the number of staff employed by a Member, merely on the number that can possess photo passes. If a Member has more than three staff in his or her employment, those without passes could still, of course, visit the House on a temporary day pass or accompanied by a photo pass holder. I would envisage that the right hon. Member for Salford, East, in his capacity as Chairman of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, would look sympathetically on the claims of those members with particular responsibilities, including Front-Bench spokesmen, some senior Members, and minority party leaders, for photo passes in excess of three.
If the House approves the report tonight, I envisage, in accordance with paragraph 60, that the recommendations concerning the number of photo pass holders would come into effect at the beginning of the coming financial year. This would leave a period of two months in which hon. Members should make any arrangements necessary, although, as I have explained, employees in excess of three would still be able to visit the House on the terms for those without photo passes.
The beginning of April would also seem to be a good time to introduce the other concrete recommendations, if approved, on research assistants and lobbyists. I am prepared, however, for a measure of flexibility if there are good arguments in favour of it. The ending of the agreements with intern-sponsoring organisations, for instance, might take place in the summer, once this academic year's crop of interns, who may already have made arrangements to come, have gone. I shall listen to hon. Members' views.
I do believe, however, that there should be no unavoidable delay in implementing the measures proposed by the Committee. There is general agreement in the House that there are too many photo passes in circulation and they are insufficiently controlled. There is, moreover, too much pressure on facilities primarily designed for Members' own use. The measures before us tonight offer a realistic package which achieves what I think is a happy medium between an over-relaxed and an over-rigorous approach. For different reasons, either approach would be to the detriment of hon. Members, and I urge the House to support the Committee's recommendations, which strike the right balance.
I shall say just a few words on the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw). I have long believed that, if we are to facilitate access to this House by Members of the European Parliament, it would be best to proceed with general agreement in all parts of the House. I am pleased to see


that the amendment has indeed attracted such support. I believe that there really can be very little objection to an amendment which is so modest in scope. If I understand it correctly, it would, if approved, merely allow MEPs access to that part of the House to which members of the public also have access, except that their photo pass would entitle them to come in at St. Stephen's entrance without having to explain themselves to the police or undergoing a bag search and scan for explosives.
We are talking about giving these very limited rights of access to a very limited number of people—81. They already enjoy these rights, and more, in another place, and I do not believe that any useful purpose is served by opposing this modest concession to our Strasbourg colleagues. They will not, under the terms of this amendment, be entitled to use any of the hard-pressed facilities of the House, and there can be no objection to it. I shall support the amendment, together with the original motion.
I shall not be supporting the other amendments you have selected, Mr. Speaker. The Sub-Committee considered most carefully the restrictions on access to the Table Office by research assistants and on the number of Members' staff who may hold photo passes, and their recommendations were endorsed unanimously by the Services Committee. To reject them now would, especially in the case of the limit of three staff photo passes per Member, substantially alter the nature of the report and even frustrate a large part of its purpose.
As for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) dealing with those who are refused a pass, I have nothing to add to what I said on the subject in the debate on 10 November 1987. Security is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and you base your decisions on confidential advice from the appropriate authorities. I do not believe that it is possible to reveal details of confidential security advice without compromising that same security. I invite the House to reject this amendment.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I thank the Lord President for his comments and support for the role of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee in the preparation of the report, apart from his remarks about European Members to whom I shall refer later. I accept full responsibility for the contents of the report and stress that the Sub-Committee approved its proposals unanimously.
As the House is aware, the report has been compiled following instructions from the House that access to this place and the lack of facilities, as well as security, should be fully investigated. I stress that, with over 10,000 passes to the Palace of Westminster, we are reaching breaking point with our facilities and that makes security even more difficult.
For a number of years there has been a steady increase in the number of individuals who have acquired a more or less unlimited right of access to the Palace of Westminster and its outbuildings, and to the various facilities available in the House, while accommodation, library and refreshment service facilities have expanded at a much slower rate.
Only two months ago the House was debating a report produced a few days earlier by the New Building Sub-Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). The report emphasised the appalling lack of accommodation available to Members and their staff, even after more than 20 years of development both inside the Palace of Westminster and in the outbuildings. According to the report:
in round numbers, 500 backbenchers presently have access to only 150 single rooms.
Even in 1990, when the present new buildings are in use, only 85 further rooms will be available for Members.
Accommodation and facilities for Members' staff are at least as bad. Our report points out that the House is at present providing only about 400 desks for more than 1,300 secretaries and research assistants of Members. Although the number of desks will have increased by about half in 1990, the number of staff continues to increase.
There are constant complaints from hon. Members on both sides of the House and their staff about the overcrowding of refreshment facilities at all times of the day and night, about the preoccupation of Library staff in dealing with demands for basic information from relatively and sometimes totally inexperienced research assistants, about queues in the Post Office and about the difficulty of getting advice from the Table Office. At the same time Members, often the same Members, insist that services should be improved—that we provide other facilities such as swimming pools, creches, shops and hairdressers, in the already overcrowded buildings.
Let me make it clear at once that I am one of those who regard the demand for better facilities as wholly legitimate.I regret and deplore the failure of the House and of successive Governments of both parties to make proper provision for accommodation and services for a Parliament facing the entirely proper demands of the latter part of the 20th century. The overriding priority must be the provision of infinitely better accommodation and other facilities for Members. The pace of development on the Bridge street site is still dreadfully slow, and the Government must realise that Members on both sides of the House are no longer prepared to tolerate such conditions.
The sooner that financial control of our new buildings programme is taken out of the hands of a Government agency and placed firmly in those of the House, the better.[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) looks at the record he will see that I have been advocating such proposals for the last 20 years, but we must face the facts as they are now. Paragraph 42 of our report states categorically:
Members' accommodation remains our absolute first priority, and pressure from Members' staff must be viewed in that light.
The same must be said equally of all facilities in the House. Members must have first priority in the Library, the Table Office and the Refreshment Department. If facilities are limited—and they are—we have to make our priorities clear. For this reason we have concluded, some of us very reluctantly, that a limit should be placed on the number of individual staff to whom Members may grant complete freedom of access to the House and its facilities.
Paragraph 54 of our report recommends that no hon. Member should normally be allowed to apply for photo passes for more than three members of his personal staff.
That does not prevent him from employing more staff; he can employ as many as he likes. We say that, given the pressures on facilities of all sorts, a limit must be imposed on those who can freely enter the building, use the Library and monopolise the photocopiers and telephones. So if additional members of staff enter the building they will need day passes or they will need to be accompanied. They cannot claim a right of free access to all the facilities.
The limit of three is not draconian. The latest available figures show that only 66 of the 650 Members hold passes for more than the proposed limit. Between them, they account for 360 of the passes issued to Members' staff—that is, for 25 per cent. of all staff employed in the Palace or outbuildings by hon. Members. A minority of hon. Members on both sides of the House now hold more than three and up to 12 passes each. That cannot continue—

Mr. George Robertson: The Leader of the House said that in certain cases exceptions to the limit of three could be made—for instance, for Front Bench spokesmen and senior Members. Of the 66 Members who hold more than the proposed limit, how many will qualify for the exemptions proposed by my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the House and by how much, therefore, will the limit they are laying down be exceeded?

Mr. Orme: Only a small minority will qualify as exceptions. I will willingly show my hon. Friend the list of passes held now, from which he will see that leaders of parties, and so on, hold more. I shall come on to how we intend to deal with that.
Initially, these proposals will hit some hon. Members hard. Even with the limit that has already been proposed, an increase of almost 50 per cent. in the number of Members' staff is possible, and the strain of that would be intolerable. We must tell colleagues who need more staff with passes that we do not have the facilities to cope with them in this building or in the outbuildings. If every hon. Member exercised the right that some hon. Members have had, we should be walking on the tops of people's heads here.
The limit that we propose is a good deal higher than that preferred by many hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has frequently argued that Members should be restricted to only one pass holder. Although I do not think he would press that view, it illustrates the fact that some senior Members are far from convinced that it is necessary or desirable for Members to have more than the number of passes that we recommend.
Our proposal seems, on all the evidence, a sensible balance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) pointed out, however, there may be exceptions. Our recommendations provide for the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee to consider individual requests for exemptions from the rule. We shall certainly consider them, but I warn that good arguments will have to be used. Every case will be judged on its merits, regardless of which hon. Member puts it.
I should add that the proposed—

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend not worried that the system that he proposes would produce, for the first time in the House, a prefect-first system? A minority would be able to present a special case. Those Members would be treated in one way and the rest of us would be treated in another. This is a place where,

basically, hon. Members have had the same resources and the same freedoms. Is my right hon. Friend not leading us down a dangerous path?

Mr. Orme: We have a prefect-first system now, because a minority of hon. Members are taking advantage of the majority. If my hon. Friend studies the figures, he will understand that I am correct.
The proposed limit on Members' staff is only a part of a package that is designed at least to slow the rate of growth in the number of pass holders of all categories in the Palace. We propose in paragraphs 47 and 48 that the limits on the number of temporary overseas research assistants—inevitably, we are now calling them interns—which were imposed in 1985 should be rigorously enforced and that the loopholes should be closed.
These assistants are mainly American students who visit us each year. They impose a disproportionately heavy demand on services, especially those that are provided by the Library and the Refreshment Department. For that reason we endorse the recommendations of the Librarian that there should be a further and marginal tightening of controls on the use of Library facilities by temporary staff. I refer the House to paragraph 36 of the report. The limit on the overall number of Members' pass-holding staff may make colleagues think twice before accepting an intern replacement.
We propose what could be the most far-reaching restriction on the growth of pass holders in general. Many organisations, including Government Departments and the media, have been steadily increasing the number of their officials who carry passes to permit them access to this building. We note that about 2,200 civil servants held temporary passes to the building last year, even though many of them were individuals who needed only occasional access to Parliament. Their passes are called temporary, but in practice each one may be held for many years. That is completely unreasonable. The system certainly does not work in the opposite direction.
The media have slipped into the same practice. Most notorious is the BBC, which already holds more than 200 passes. What will happen when television comes into the Chamber, whether it is organised by the BBC or any other organisation? We must take that into account.
The trends to which I have referred must stop. In paragraph 59 we propose that the total number of passes held by any outside organisation should be frozen at the present level. If the motion is agreed, it will be possible for outside organisations to increase their allocation of passes only if the Sub-Committee approves. The allocations for new organisations, such as the new television organisations, will require the specific approval of the Sub-Committee. In that way, and for the first time, the right of unimpeded access will be policed and controlled by Members and not merely by officials.
If we are imposing controls on our own staff, the House will agree, I think, that we should have the power to impose similar control on other bodies. That should and would include Departments of the Executive and of the Government.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman said that the BBC will continue to hold 200 passes. Cannot some effort be made to diminish the number?

Mr. Orme: As a start, we shall freeze the number, but then we shall examine the position in more detail. We do not say that that number must remain for ever. We shall want some justification from the organisations for having so many passes. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is an authority on the media, will advise the Sub-Committee on the best way to organise the matter.
On the growth of covert lobbying in the House, I am sure that I carry with me hon. Members on both sides of the House. The matter has been examined in detail by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, and I hope that the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) will soon produce constructive proposals from his Committee. But there is too much evidence of abuse at present for us not to take whatever action is open to us now. My Committee has heard of frankly shocking examples of commercial lobbyists trying to infiltrate themselves into the building under many guises.
Hon. Members need look no further than appendix 7 on page 44 of the report to see the example of a lobbyist who, with refreshing naivety, tried to infiltrate himself into the House in the guise of a research assistant to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I should have thought that that was the last hon. Member on whom to try that. The lobbyist's letter hints that the House of Commons is easy game for poachers from the world of public relations.
That practice must be stopped, and our recommendation in paragraph 52 will enable the Services Committee to recommend to Mr. Speaker the immediate withdrawal of a pass where the holder is clearly primarily engaged as a lobbyist. I hope that the House will endorse the proposal, and I should welcome information that will assist my Sub-Committee in carrying it out.
The latter part of the report deals with controls over the number of pass holders for the building. It is one thing to limit the number of pass holders, but quite another effectively to decide how the pass-holding system is maintained. There are two objectives. First, no individual should be issued with a pass giving unlimited access to the building unless there is reasonable certainty that he is suitable to hold such a potentially valuable document. Secondly, our procedures for checking passes must be adequate to ensure that only legitimate pass holders can move freely in the non-public areas of the Palace.
The checking of pass holders has already given rise to great controversy, and is the reason why the Services Committee inquired further into the matter and came up with the present proposals. It is clear that at least some checking is required before the right of access is granted to those who do not have that right by reason of being elected here. All permanent staff of the two Houses are fully checked before taking up their jobs, as are civil servants and the agents of public corporations working in the building. The same rules should apply to all.
I was surprised to discover that overseas staff employed by Members are often subject to no checking. Paragraph 11 of the report recommends that appropriate clearance always be obtained before a photo identity pass is issued to foreign nationals.

Sir Jim Spicer: Excluding the question of the overseas students being employed by Members of Parliament, would it not be proper for the parties to look

carefully at the practice of employing overseas students? I understand that quite a number of them wandering round the building have been employed by parties.

Mr. Orme: When we examined that issue we found that it was controversial. We said that there must be some right of access, but that it must be properly controlled. In our opinion it had not been controlled. The intention now is to control it. The best way to deal with the issue—my hon.Friend the member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has tabled an amendment on the matter—is through the security authorities, so we did not examine the matter. Individual security is a matter for Mr. Speaker and, as the Leader of the House pointed out, we did not discuss that in detail.
The Sub-Committee looked closely at various possibilities that might help and has recommended that they should be seriously examined by the appropriate authorities and introduced if they think fit. Those possibilities concern only checking people coming in and not vetting. The proposals include the use of machine-readable passes, the introduction of mechanised barriers at the main entrances to the Palace and the underground car park, the occasional screening of pass holders, as well as the public entering the building, and the possible wearing of passes inside the building. I hope that those proposals will be considered seriously. Some of them are highly controversial, but there is no reason why we should not consider them. If we do not like them, we can reject them, but we should consider them.
The report is, in many ways, a compromise. It is designed to put a modest brake on the number of people with an unqualified right of entry to the Palace and its precincts and it suggests some ways in which the enforcement and policing of the pass system could be improved. It leaves some discretion to the Services Committee which may help to iron out the problems that will, inevitably, arise from its implementation. The report does not pretend to solve all the problems for all time. It is inevitable that the Committee and the House will have to come back to the issues before long, but I strongly urge all hon. Members to give the proposals a chance. It is the nearest that we have come to a comprehensive review.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Is it not a pity that some provision was not made in the report for former Members of Parliament? Is it not shameful that although many people can come and go in the House, people who have served honourably for many years do not have access even to the Strangers' Cafeteria? Private companies such as Marks and Spencer and ICI at least give their retired employees better recognition.

Mr. Orme: We have had representations on that, but we have not had time to discuss them. We have also not had time to discuss the question of Members of the European Parliament. As a result, until the matter comes before us we are not in a position to make recommendations, although I note what my hon. Friend has said. Again, the problem is one of pressure on the building and its facilities, rather than of any hon. Members being opposed to such suggestions.
The report does not pretend to solve all problems for all time, but it is the nearest we have come to a comprehensive review of access to the building and the attempts to deal with the problems of overcrowding that we now face. With any luck, some of the proposals may be relaxed in the


future when the accommodation available to the House is significantly improved. But for the time being, some restrictions must be imposed.
I want to comment briefly on the amendments. Amendment (a) seeks to remove our recommendation that the research assistants of hon. Members should not have access to the Table Office during the period of peak activity on weekday afternoons. I have no strong feeling on that, but I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North that the Table Office made the proposal and it was supported by the Sub-Committee not only because there have been complaints from other hon. Members of overcrowding in that busy office, but because we desired to stop the overcrowding during the times when hon. Members themselves most needed the advice of the Table Office.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) is far more significant. Access by Members of the European Parliament was hotly debated in the Services Committee during the previous two Parliaments, but no applications have been made to my Sub-Committee since the general election of 1987.Frankly, I was surprised and amazed to hear the Leader of the House lend his support to what is proposed, because the case for and against providing facilities for MEPs should be properly considered in the Sub-Committee before being submitted to the House.
The amendment is an attempt to carry a decision on a matter of some importance on the coat tails of a quite different debate. I cannot support it. I advise the House that if we are concerned about facilities and overcrowding and if we grant 81 passes, that will be only the beginning. There will be pressure for the use of other facilities and for the staff of MEPs to enter. What special right do European Members of Parliament have for unfettered access to this building? It is completely wrong.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) does not ask for any facilities to be given to European Members of Parliament? Does he accept that my hon. Friend's amendment proposes much less than is offered by other national Parliaments in the European Community to their MEPs?

Mr. Orme: Other European Parliaments have facilities that are superior to ours. Has the hon. Gentleman not heard the saying about the thin end of the wedge? That is what we are talking about. This is not a personal matter about individual Members of the European Parliament; it is about our facilities in the House of Commons.
I turn finally to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) which seeks to increase the limit on the number of an hon. Member's pass-holding staff from three as we propose to five. That runs a coach and horses through our main recommendation. We are concerned, for the time being at least, to limit staff to meet the accommodation and other facilities that are available. The amendment would allow a possible further 1,300 pass-holding staff and, if agreed, would undermine the main intentions of our report. I advise—

Mr. Stuart Holland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the staff that some of us employ are

part-time? His figure of 1,000-plus is simply not relevant in the case of part-time staff because the full-time equivalent may amount only to three persons.

Mr. Orme: If they have permits to enter, that is all right. It is a matter for my hon. Friend. We are talking about permits that allow people, whether full-time or part-time, access to this House at any time of the day or night.
The report stands well without the proposed amendments. I ask the House to support our modest but important proposals, in the interests of those who work here—both Members and staff.

Sir Michael Shaw: I support the report and agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said, many of his remarks about the amendment are mistaken. Should the amendment be agreed, people will do no more than what they can do now, but they will be able to do it without going through the screening and questioning process that they now must undergo.
We joined the Common Market and confirmed that we meant to take a positive role. We confirmed our act ion by a referendum. Today, we are more than ever committed to playing our full part in the development of the Community. The Council of Ministers meets regularly. Our own Government are robust in not only seeking what is best for the Community but in safeguarding our national interests. It is equally important that hon. Members lose no opportunity to keep in touch with United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament with the same purposes in mind. It is to that end that I have tabled amendment (b).
When I was in the European Parliament, before direct elections, I was strongly urged to become a directly elected Member of the Parliament in 1979. In the end, I decided against it, first, because it would have meant my giving up my Scarborough constituency of which I am fond. Secondly, it became clear that the House was not prepared to offer a helping hand to encourage newly elected Members of the European Parliament to gain access to hon. Members and to their Committees. With an obvious denial of any gesture of welcome, I cannot blame any Member of the European Parliament who concludes that he would rather not come here at all. To say the least, I found our attitude discouraging and frustrating.
The present position is not only discourteous to United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament but harmful to our own interests, whether we are keen Europeans or have hesitations about the way in which the EEC is developing. It must be in our interests that our point of view is put forward in discussions with our colleagues in the European Parliament. Equally, we should seek to understand their point of view.
Many Back-Bench Committees have already welcomed visits by United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament, but their interest in coming to us is greatly lessened by the unwelcome restrictions that are placed upon their access to this place.
To say the least, my amendment is modest. However, it would give United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament an important right—the right of access to the Central Lobby, the Lower and Upper Waiting Halls, and the Committee Corridors. Such a right to come to meet us


would show them that they are welcome, that they have direct political access to us, and that they are not expected to undergo the searches and questioning that now take place.
My amendment would remedy a disadvantage from which, at present, only our own Members of the European Parliament suffer in their national Parliament. I hope that the amendment will receive full support from hon. Members. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his kind words about it. If it is agreed, my amendment will encourage closer relationships between ourselves and our European colleagues. It is in the interests not only of the Community as a whole but of this country within it.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief because many wish to speak.
I am disappointed in the report, its tenor and what it seeks to do. A report on access to Parliament should be better debated on a more important basis than the number of research assistants Members of Parliament can have.
The public are forced to wait outside, often in the rain, for many hours and then in Central Lobby often for a long time before Members can be found. If they succeed in getting a ticket for the Gallery, they cannot leave the Gallery other than for a short time, they cannot get refreshments on their own and there are no facilities for changing children or leaving them—[Laughter.] I do not know why Tory Members find that funny. Many of my constituents are appalled at how they are treated and the image that the House presents. They are better received and treated at most town halls than here.

Mr. Holland: Since these considerations do not occur to Tory Members, may I inform the House that today my six-year-old child was ill and could not go to school, so in the middle of the afternoon I was in a dilemma about whether I could attend a committee meeting in the House because I could not leave the child alone in the family room. If there were a creche, I could without question have known that I could attend.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention because it illustrates my point. He is talking about Members' children, whereas I am talking about how the public are treated. I wish that Tory Members would not find this so funny. Some Members are more concerned about keeping an excessive number of passes, possibly for commercial lobbying purposes, than about whether people in the House can do their work properly and the public can enter the place.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It should be put on record that we are served by as courteous a group of people as exists anywhere. When the public come to this House, they are treated by the police, security staff and others with great courtesy and complete consideration, often under extreme provocation.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said. I was talking about the facilities, conditions and lengthy waiting periods for members of the

public. I was not criticising the actions of the police or anybody in their treatment of the public. I am talking about the image that the building presents to the public.
Delegations from the Islington Disablement Association and other groups have come here to see me and it is a humiliating disgrace that to get someone in a wheelchair to Central Lobby to lobby a Member, as is the inalienable right of everyone, he must be dragged all round the car park, put in lifts where wheelchairs will not go, and made to feel exceptional and different. If we in Parliament demand that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 is put into operation in every local authority and that there should be access for the disabled to every public building, that should apply here in exactly the same way.
There are a large number of dining rooms on the ground floor. They are hired out at great cost for lunches and dinners provided that they are for the benefit of commercial lobbies and firms. There is nowhere that any member of the public can get any refreshment other than from one machine, which often does not work, in the Upper Waiting Hall, if they can find it, unless a Member is available to take them into the Strangers' Cafeteria for a cup of tea. Why can we not have Westminster Hall as a waiting area and provide proper refreshment facilities for the public there?
Anyone who cares to walk around the building and to have a look at staff working conditions would be appalled. It is a disgrace. During the recess I went into the Vote Office and was appalled to see paper stacked up to the ceiling. If I had been a shop steward for them, as I have been in the past in the public sector—[Laughter.] I fail to see what is so funny about a serious fire risk right underneath this Chamber. The working conditions are Dickensian, to put it mildly. We have low ceilings and a lack of emergency escape facilities because the building has Crown immunity and health and safety regulations do not apply here. However, we demand, quite rightly, that they are applied everywhere else. It is wrong that our staff are expected to work in these appalling conditions.
I want to raise also the question of creches and nursery facilities. In many workplaces—not necessarily only those run by progressive employers—nurseries are provided because employers understand that enployees have children and that the nursery facilities provided by most local authorities are appalling. Therefore, employers have tried to make some facilities available to their staff. As there are 10,000 staff working in this building, ranging from catering staff to staff in your office, Mr. Speaker, there must be an enormous demand for creche and nursery facilities. However, we seem to have our priorities all wrong. We are more interested in dining rooms where private lobbying can take place than in facilities for the public who come here to see Parliament in operation. We are more concerned to continue the privileges of hon. Members rather than about the needs of staff employed by hon. Members and by the House.
I hope that those matters will be considered seriously. They may have been ignored by the second report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) which we are considering today. I hope that the Select Committee will consider these points properly in future. It is an absolute scandal that Crown immunity denies workers in this building the same rights that they would receive anywhere else under a different employer.

Mr. Orme: I can assure my hon. Friend that his points are not ignored in the Select Committee's report, nor are they ignored in the new building report prepared by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). We are aware of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and we want to implement them as soon as possible. However, it is a matter of facilities and of getting on with that wretched building over the road.

Mr. Corbyn: That may be so. However, I have been a Member of the House for nearly six years—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Thanks for that. I have heard for so long all this stuff about looking into the question of access for the disabled and into the provision of creches and nurseries. Why does this Parliament have to operate in terms of the last century? The conditions are appalling and they should be improved.
I have drafted several amendments which I hoped would encourage the House to consider these problems seriously. That may be a vain hope, but one lives in expectation. I will move my amendment later, as you instructed, Mr. Speaker.
My amendment (a) reads:
Line 3, after 'be', insert, 'with the exception of the recommendation in paragraph 33 relating to access to the Table Office by research assistants,'.
I have tabled it for a simple reason. As I understand the proposal, research assistants will not be allowed into the Table Office after 2 pm. I understand—if I am wrong, I stand to be corrected—that the restriction would not apply to staff of Ministers or to the staff of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. It would apply only to the staff of Back Benchers. We will have a system of privilege for questions to be planted on Ministers' behalf or whatever else they want done and the same for the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, but Back Benchers would be denied the right to have a research assistant table a question on their behalf. I do not mind what rules exist, but they should be absolutely the same for everyone.
My other amendments relate partly to my experience concerning the withdrawal of a pass from my former researcher, Dr. Ronan Bennett. If the House accepts the Select Committee report without question, I hope that hon. Members will consider very carefully what they are doing. Implicit in the recommendation on security is that an unnamed person giving unknown information about an application for a research assistant's pass can cause that pass to be refused without the applicant knowing what he is suspected of or guilty of and without the hon. Member knowing what is happening. If we believe in a system of justice, that system must be open and above board. We cannot allow a secret organisation to condemn someone out of hand without any power of redress or that person even knowing the charge against him.
Dr. Bennett was told by the House and the Murdoch press that he was unfit to receive a pass to enter the building. At no stage was he or I told anything about the nature of the suspicions or allegations against him. It has happened to me with one of my staff. Would any hon. Member like to have an application for a pass withdrawn and refused with no reason given? If it had happened to any Conservative Members, they would think more carefully—or at least I hope they would—about the points that I am making.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman asked whether Conservative Members would like it to happen to them. I make it clear that, if a member of staff whom I wished to employ did not pass the security services' test, I should be grateful to them.

Mr. Corbyn: It is an unquestioning hon. Member who would accept such action without being given any reason.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The intervention of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) was interesting. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) identified six Conservative Members of Parliament in 1979 as being unsuitable for office. Would he apply his comments to them as well?

Mr. Corbyn: The House should not pass a report that takes power away from itself and hands it over to the unelected and the unaccountable. It is a serious issue, and I hope that, when we come to amendment (e), which you have agreed to call, Mr. Speaker, the House will recognise that what I am proposing in this amendment is that the reasons for refusal should be made known to the applicant and to the sponsoring hon. Member. That does not appear to be an unreasonable request.
I believe that this House has an awful lot of catching up to do. The conditions under which most hon. Members work are appalling. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who has been here since June 1987, received his desk only this week. [Laughter.] I do not find that funny. I find it disgraceful that, with all the privileges and special rooms in this place, hon. Members can be denied a desk. All of us should be concerned that, when elected to Parliament, we should have the physical conditions to do the job properly. As with every other building, there should be facilities for access of persons of disabilities. This House should be made welcoming rather than daunting to the public, and it should be seen as an open Parliament to which people can come, to watch, to listen and perhaps to understand something of what goes on here. Instead we are secretive, we set up barriers, and we seem more interested in privileges for ourselves than in facilities for the staff or the visiting public.
I hope that the Services Committee will reconsider all these issues and decide that it is time that this Parliament was brought into the second half of the 20th century and made the public place that it should be.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this debate will end at 11·44 pm. I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind when making their speeches.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that he would be brief, but then went on somewhat. What he possesses in verbosity, he clearly lacks in a sense of humour, because he kept saying that he did not find the response of hon. Members funny. Of course, when he said that, hon. Members regarded his remarks as even more avant garde and over the top. What he did not realise was that the House is concerned about the congestion of our physical facilities and the need to have proper control.
All hon. Members will be grateful to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) for the way in which he and his colleagues on the Sub-Committee presented the


report. It has emphasised the need for control, especially over the issuing of passes. That is welcome. The proposals proceed from no limit—a situation which has developed in an evolutionary and unsatisfactory way—to a proper fixed limit, on which the House needs to agree. At present, the proposal, endorsed by the Leader of the House, is for a limit of three years.
I shall refer briefly to one or two other aspects of the report, which I regard as excellent and to which I shall be glad to give my wholehearted support, as, I imagine, will most hon. Members. In paragraph 7 on page vi, one sees that there are 72 different categories of photo-identity pass holders, which is excessive. Again, one commends the Sub-Committee's attempts to achieve a rational control over the entire panoply of passes.
I wonder about the five-year limit on validity of an individual pass for Members contained in paragraph 8. Perhaps that pass should be valid for longer. There are many excellent parts to the report and if previous speakers had not taken up so much time one could refer to them. I am particularly delighted to support the proposals for Members of the European Parliament, which were advanced with a characteristically courteous and gentlemanly approach by my hon. Friend for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw).
Apart from a couple of small details, that is the only area with which I take issue with the right hon. Member for Salford, East. I hope that I will not offend the right hon. Gentleman if I say that I thought that his attitude in this respect rather curmudgeonly. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough would agree that his proposal was a modest first step and to describe it as the thin end of the wedge is embarrassing to our distinguished colleagues of all parties who are hard-working Members of the European Parliament—although I am aware that this does not affect the alliance. We should be more positive about the proposal and I am glad that the Leader of the House demonstrated some enthusiam for it.
I and other hon. Members from all parties have tabled amendments dealing with a slight revision of the limit on the number of passes. Some hon. Members may consider that the maximum number of six passes, as opposed to three, is on the high side. In your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, you have selected the amendment that sets the limit at five—the other amendment proposed four passes—in a word, the middle of the range.
I understand that hon. Members from all parties wish to reassure themselves that they will no longer see strange people wandering around the Corridors and wonder who they are, and that they will not see such people on Corridors that were previously the preserve of Members of Parliament. They understand, however, that it is necessary to exercise a rational and durable control.
The physical restrictions that we intend to place on people are welcome. No access to the Table Office after 2 o'clock on Monday to Thursday is an excellent idea. The quid pro quo must be try to reach the right compromise figure for the number of passes to be issued for all staff members of any hon. Member. Some hon. Members have no such staff—presumably they have a secretary, but they may not have a research assistant. Some may have a, part-time research assistant. Conservative Members rightly feel some resentment when it appears that

Members of the smaller parties overdo it by issuing far too many passes to their assistants. We acknowledge that they have to cover many more portfolios than the Members of larger parties, but they overdo it and that causes resentment. That does not gainsay the need to try to get the balance right, which is a difficult judgment.
I plead with hon. Members to consider seriously amendment (1) which suggests five passes, I believe which is the right compromise. To opt for no limit affords the maximum discretion. Some hon. Members do not want to have research assistants with passes, but others do. We must consider the tapestry of differential requirements. Would it be right to go from no limit to the low figure of three, and, on page xiv, paragraph 54 (iii), build into that limit the dubious idea that the Sub-Committee should recommend to the Services Committee
an increase in the limit in respect of an individual Member where they are satisfied that exceptional circumstances apply"?
I hope that the right hon. Member for Salford, East is not offended by that reference and I am sure that the Committee would honourably and faithfully try to ensure that it was satisfied about those circumstances. Nevertheless, I believe that such a principle is problematical and almost a reprehensible one to attempt to build into the limit. If that increase were limited to leaders of parties perhaps the House could support it, but would that happen?
More and more approaches would come from institutional and semi-institutional quarters on behalf of Members who have particular duties—many Members have duties on one kind or another. What about Chairmen of Select Committees or someone who for an operational requirement has three part-time research assistants and one and a half secretaries to cope with the work load? What about those who may be between appointing assistants whose passes may overlap, or long-distance Members who may need an extra person to stay here permanently? London Members might want people in a local office to come here frequently and have proper access to the House. In such cases, the limit of three passes would not be adequate.
It is not right for hon. Members to make the House excessively nervous by saying that, automatically, all hon. Members would go for the maximum limit that we would decide and that three times 650 would be a 50 per cent. increase on the existing figure. If we went to five, as is suggested in amendment (1), that does not mean that there would be 650 times five staff pass holders of one kind or another. Many hon. Members would continue with the existing number of passes. Equally, for all sorts of reasons other hon. Members would have to go above the limit and would be entitled to do that in the pursuance of their work. I know that the House wishes to exercise proper control and that is why the slightly higher compromise limit of four, five or six—in this case five, according to the terms of the middle-of-the-range amendment—should be seriously considered.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) who is not here. As I have told the Leader of the House, he is on a constituency engagement and I am deputising for him.
My hon. Friends and I advocate a limit. The report was precipitated by a security matter and we accept that there should be security in the building. It is right that the House should ensure that people going about their business are strictly protected. For those reasons, we do not contest the ground that restrictions are needed on the huge number of passes that are presently given to nearly 10,000 people in many different categories to allow them to come and go in the House and in the other place.
So far there has been no breach of the rules by hon. Members or by others, and no limits have been applied. There can be no allegation of impropriety, because there has been none. The issue before the House is about the appropriate way to equip hon. Members, primarily, to do the job that they need to do in the House. There is a fundamental question related to the legislative part of the constitution rather than to the Executive sector. We have an excellent Library, but for those of us who have to shadow Departments and for many others with specific duties in the House, there is a need for adequate support to begin to take on the Executive. We need that support in order to do the job properly.
I support the proposal by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and commend to the House the proposition that to move from no restriction to a tight first restriction will pose a problem. I remind the House that that is distinct from what we propose in the other categories. As the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, the other categories are to be frozen and not restricted. Members are to be restricted, while Ministers are not. I understand the concern of the right hon. Member for Salford, East that, if we all exercised the right to go to the limit, things would be impossible. The argument against that stands on the basis of the facts of the moment. Many Members have three or fewer pass holders, and only a few have more than the maximum. The hon. Member for Harrow, East and other hon. Members suggested a low maximum, and the likelihood of a coach and horses being driven through a proposal to restrict limits is invalidated by the experience of the House. People choose the number of passes to reflect their circumstances.

Mr. David Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman still have nine research assistants? That was the figure that he gave, to his credit, in his evidence to the Committee. Does he not agree that nine is a ridiculous number for any hon. Member to have?

Mr. Hughes: We proposed a maximum of six, and I have six at the moment. However, two are part-time, and are never here at the same time. All the people who work for me are paid from the Fees Office, and I use my salary to pay people. This is an important issue. If hon. Members choose to use their office costs allowance to employ three or four staff, they have the right to that flexibility, and not to have the number of staff on whom they choose to spend their money restricted by an arbitrary limit.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: rose—

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way again.
This should not be a party political issue. The majority of members of my party have three or fewer pass holders. I hope that we shall not impose restrictions on Members of Parliament when lobbyists and others still have access to the House.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East argued for the sensible balance, and I ask the House to support that and to realise that there are many occasions when flexibility, and hon. Member's right to flexibility, is appropriate. I can cite two further examples. One is when a hon. Member has a private Member's Bill. That will inevitably, for a short time, impose extra work. He may need to have somebody here permanently for that time, and may need to have a number of appropriate passes.

Mr. Cormack: rose—

Mr. Hughes: No, I must continue.
Another factor is the hours that people can come in. It is not sufficient to say that they can have a day pass. The Member of Parliament may not be here to enable them to get in, or to sign the day pass. There may not be anybody in the office to authorise their arrival when they come. There are many practical reasons why hon. Members should give themselves the flexibility that the alternative proposal of a maximum of five would give.
Many Members of Parliament sponsor three pass holders—well over 100. Well over a quarter of Members of Parliament sponsor three or more pass holders. The evidence of the current practice of the House is that there needs to be flexibility for those who might want to increase the number by one, but find that the motion, if passed unamended, would not allow that. There should be a limit—there is no argument against that—but to restrict that limit to three would inhibit the performance of the duty that is, above all, the principal responsibility of Members of Parliament—to spend our money and meet our needs appropriately, within a properly secure system of allocating passes. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support amendment (1)

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I hope that the House will do no such thing. Although the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) produced a soft-soapy argument for increasing the number to five or six, every hon. Member who exceeds the limit trespasses on the generosity of his colleagues. If the hon. Member thinks about it for a moment, he will see that that is so. We are not seeking to limit the number of research assistants who may be employed by the Democrats, individually or collectively. We are saying that there must be a limit on the number of people who come into the building. That is entirely different, and I deeply resent the hon. Gentleman's attempt to confuse the issue; it is not worthy of him.
There are a number of good reasons for us to pass the motion. It is a beginning. I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). There is plenty of work to be done, but we must stop the rot at this point. The House is becoming liberty hall. There are people roaming around whom none of us know by sight and whom we cannot identify. The police do not know them. Passes are issued to newspaper delivery people who come to the House once a day to deliver two copies of a provincial paper to the Library. That is utterly ludicrous and there must be ways of better arranging our affairs—

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Onslow: —for security and practical purposes.
I see no objection to the extremely modest proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough, (Sir M.


Shaw) that Members of the European Parliament should be put on the same footing as our own staff who have permanent passes. What is wrong with that? We are not suggesting that they be given elaborate facilities, creches, bathrooms or whatever else maybe in store in the new building. We are simply asking that they should be able to come in here without having to hang about for an interminable period at the entrance. As most of us know, they can already come in, by permission of the other place, through the House of Lords entrance and it demeans us that we do not accord them the same courtesy.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Onslow: I hope very much that we shall pass this motion with my hon. Friend's amendment and that the other amendments will be rejected.

Mr. Tony Benn: The real problem is the appalling conditions in which the House of Commons is expected to work. I can go back to 1950, when I had to wait for a locker. It was 14 years before I had a room, and that was because I was a Minister, and 29 years before I had a room as a Back Bencher. Conditions are appalling for both Members and the staff of the House. When people say that the Executive gets away with things that they should not, it is in part because this legislature—the House of Commons—has neglected to provide itself with facilities to develop. Schoolchildren come round the House in a morning, but it is a disgrace because, when we talk to them afterwards, they do not have the slightest idea what the House of Commons does; all they know is that Mr. Speaker wears a wig, or that the Mace was dropped in a certain place, or that something happened to King Charles I along the street; and, in the evening, the Harcourt corridor is full of lobbyists paying money to get their case into the House.
I oppose the report. I am sorry to disappoint my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), but it is a disgrace for the High Court of Parliament to say that Ronan Bennett was denied a pass, as a security risk, when he had not been tried. I met that man once after the case had come to light. He was convicted—no doubt you will correct me, Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong—and you thought it your duty to take the judgment of the Sergeant at Arms. I do not believe that any elected Member saw the security case. That judgment should not be endorsed by the House, because it could be applied in many ways.
The links with the public are the lifeblood of the House of Commons. I have always found it offensive that we talk about the Strangers' Gallery; it is the "Electors' Gallery." We still say and think in the House, "I spy Strangers"; it might be better to say, "I've seen an elector." It is the contact with the public that makes this place relevant.
We now have the absolute obsession with security. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East served in Northern Ireland, but he must know that security is not a new problem. There was Guy Fawkes. There was the murder of Spencer Percival, but it is incredible to hear hon. Members say that everyone should have a pass and be body-searched. The murders of Airey Neave and Spencer Percival did occur in this place, but are we really describing

ourselves as if we were working at Windscale or in one of the high-security defence establishments? We make ourselves ridiculous by talking about that level of security.
We need a new look. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) rightly said that it is awful to see pensioners queueing in the cold when Westminster Hall is empty and only available for a special exhibition for some lobbyist who wants to get his case across to the House. When television comes, I hope that there will be open-circuit television so that they can watch the House while they wait. We should treat them as what they are—our employers.
The work of Members has expanded considerably. I suppose that it all began with the welfare state and the Liberal Government of 1910. My dad once told me that after the Lloyd George insurance Act—the National Insurance Act 1911—he was in the Members' Post Office and a Conservative Member came in, threw three letters on the table and said, "Look at that. That is a product of your Government." He also told me that, when women got the vote, the House stopped sniggering about women's issues.
With the expansion in case work, letters and surgeries, how can we keep any Government—Labour or Tory—under control unless we have the facilities? How can it be said that women are under-represented in Parliament when creches are not available? That does not apply only to women Members: as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) pointed out, men too have responsibilities for their children. Librarians have such responsibilities. But we dismiss them, while letting out the Dining Rooms so that the Refreshment Department can make a profit.
The truth is that we are not a serious Parliament. If Members have not enough room in the House, we should give them grants so that they can have offices elsewhere. I do not work in an office here: I could not get a tenth of my papers into my little room. I got a window about 18 months ago, however.
Members must be given the funds to do their job. My only complaint about interns is that British youngsters are not allowed to come to Parliament. The Americans realise its importance, or at least they go back knowing something about it.
The report is another step towards the subordination of the legislature to the Executive—I say that to my right hon. Friend with deep respect. We are saying that we will let the security services decide who can come in. It is wrong for a Parliament to do that: the security services are employed by the Government of the day, and we know a little about them from recent legislation. We are saying that, because political work has expanded, we will restrict facilities instead of expanding them. But we need not wait for the new building. There are an awful lot of things that we could do. I have always thought that the House of Lords should be put to better use. After all, if we are to let MEPs in on the ground that they have been elected, what about keeping other people out on the ground that they have not been?
I shall vote for the amendment, although not for MEPs, who can come and see Members if they want. There is no reciprocal facility in the European Parliament—not that that matters, as I doubt whether many Members would wish to go there. I think that the amendments of my hon.
Friend the Member for Islington, North are amendments of substance, but that the report is inward-looking, restrictive and dangerous. I advise the House to reject it.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The Sub-Committee—consisting of members of the Government party, the Opposition and the Social and Liberal Democrats—has, in its unanimous report, done a workmanlike rather than a doctrinaire job for the House of Commons. I am very grateful to its Chairman and members for the care with which they took the evidence and produced the report.
Let me first refer to amendment (a). There are certain times which are crucial in the Table Office. If a Member has not succeeded in getting to the front of the queue to put down a question or motion by then, it is delayed by a day. If it is an amendment, it will become a starred amendment and will probably not be selected for that reason.
In general, research assistants have not the knowledge of procedure that Members have, and if they have unlimited access to the Table Office they are likely to take up far more of the two Clerks'—sometimes one Clerk's—time than a Member who, knowing far more about procedure, comes in to table a question or a motion. It is important that Members should not lose a crucial day when they wish to table an amendment or question because inexperienced research assistants want to engage the attention of the duty Clerks to find out whether what they want to do is in order.
It is well known that the Library has been grossly abused by visitors who want to use the services of the Library to enable them to write theses for their examinations. It is quite right that the Sub-Committee has drawn attention to that.
The Sub-Committee's report does not deal with an ideal solution in unlimited facilities. It is to do with priority in very limited facilities. It has done a workmanlike job in that context, and it will have my support. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for putting down a motion that we approve, rather than taking note of the report. I hope that the response of the House will encourage him to do the same for other reports of Committees of the House, which yet await decision by the House.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have a larger than usual number of research assistants, but it must be said that several of them are part-time and come in only once a fortnight or once a month. The decision on how many of them I need to do my job is mine, and no one else's. There are many different concepts of what our job is. Are we laymen, specialists, or constituency representatives? It is wrong to impose other Members' views of what the job is on me. I want to do this job and serve Great Grimsby in the way that I think appropriate. I need the staff that I think are appropriate to help me do that job—

Mr. Michael Jopling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mitchell: No.
Secondly, if the House in its wisdom does not provide the necessary resources and money to allow me to do the job in the way I think appropriate, I should be free to take help from outside, wherever it is available.

Mr. Jopling: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the hon. Member is not giving way.

Mr. Mitchell: If the facilities are strained, it is the responsibility of the House to improve them, not to cut down on their use. By excluding people from obtaining passes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) will not get the facilities improved. That will be used as an argument for not improving them. The argument that people are not excluded if they cannot use the the House's facilities is wrong; they will be effectively excluded, with the exception of those working for the wealthier Members with offices in other parts of town. For us, they will be excluded.
My final point is simple: the trend of the times is that the House is becoming more open, more specialised and more interesting to the public. That means more access for more people and more help to do our job. We cannot stand in the way of that progress. If we do, we shall make ourselves look stupid and be knocked over by it.
This is a petty, prejudicial motion; I hope that the House will oppose it.

Mr. William Cash: With reference to amendment (b), I must say that co-operation and exchange of information between this Parliament and the European Parliament have become increasingly important in the light of the single European Act and our involvement in the Community.
Having welcomed these provisions in principle, I must add a reservation. This is a one-way arrangement. Access is to this House. The problem is how to gain access to the information that we need about what is happening in the European institutions—information that we need to be able effectively to exercise our judgment on behalf of our constituents. We should seriously consider improving the manner in which we get over to Europe from time to time.

It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [27 January] , to put forthwith the Questions on amendments selected by him which were then moved.

Amendment proposed: (a), after 'be', insert
with the exception of the recommendation in paragraph 33 relating to access to the Table Office by research assistants,'.—[Mr. Corbyn.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 36, Noes 201.

Division No. 62]
[11.44 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Gordon, Mildred


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Clay, Bob
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Charles


Dalyell, Tam
Maclennan, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fisher, Mark
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Flynn, Paul
Nellist, Dave






Patchett, Terry
Smith, C. (IsI ton amp; F'bury)


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ruddock, Joan
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Salmond, Alex


Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Stuart Holland.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Alexander, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Alton, David
Hannam, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Amess, David
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Harris, David


Ash by, David
Haynes, Frank


Baldry, Tony
Hayward, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Heddle, John


Boyes, Roland
Hind, Kenneth


Bright, Graham
Hood, Jimmy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Burns, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Irvine, Michael


Butterfill, John
Jack, Michael


Callaghan, Jim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Carrington, Matthew
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carttiss, Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cash, William
Knapman, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Chapman, Sydney
Lamond, James


Chope, Christopher
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Livsey, Richard


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cormack, Patrick
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cran, James
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Cryer, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Macdonald, Calum A.


Curry, David
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maclean, David


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Devlin, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Dixon, Don
Maginnis, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Mans, Keith


Doran, Frank
Maples, John


Dover, Den
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Durant, Tony
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dykes, Hugh
Maude, Hon Francis


Eastham, Ken
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Emery, Sir Peter
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Meale, Alan


Fallon, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fearn, Ronald
Miller, Sir Hal


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Foster, Derek
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fox, Sir Marcus
Morgan, Rhodri


Franks, Cecil
Morrison, Sir Charles


Freeman, Roger
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


French, Douglas
Moss, Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gill, Christopher
Neubert, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Golding, Mrs Llin
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gow, Ian
Norris, Steve


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gregory, Conal
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Paice, James


Ground, Patrick
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil





Patnick, Irvine
Sumberg, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Summerson, Hugo


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Porter, David (Waveney)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Thurnham, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raffan, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Redwood, John
Trippier, David


Renton, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Walden, George


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ryder, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Sims, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wiggin, Jerry


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin


Stern, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevens, Lewis
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: (b), at end add

'provided also that United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament may be issued with photo-identity passes allowing them access to the Central Lobby, the Lower and Upper Waiting Halls and the Committee Corridors.'—[Sir Michael Shaw.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 62.

Division No. 63]
[11.56 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alton, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Amery, Rl Hon Julian
Dover, Den


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dykes, Hugh


Baldry, Tony
Emery, Sir Peter


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Flynn, Paul


Boyes, Roland
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bright, Graham
Franks, Cecil


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Freeman, Roger


Burns, Simon
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carrington, Matthew
Gregory, Conal


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chapman, Sydney
Ground, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifte)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hannam, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Harris, David


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hayward, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cran, James
Heddle, John


Curry, David
Hind, Kenneth


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)
Home Robertson, John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Day, Stephen
Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunter, Andrew
Robertson, George


Jack, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Janner, Greville
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Salmond, Alex


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kennedy, Charles
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Lee, John (Pendle)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Peter
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speller, Tony


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Squire, Robin


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Maples, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Summerson, Hugo


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Sir Hal
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (GBdling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moss, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Trippier, David


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Norris, Steve
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walden, George


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Irvine
Warren, Kenneth


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wheeler, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whitney, Ray


Portillo, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wood, Timothy


Radice, Giles


Raffan, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Redwood, John
Mr. David Maclean and


Renton, Tim
Mr. Tom Sackville.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Haynes, Frank


Ashby, David
Hood, Jimmy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Buckley, George J.
Irvine, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)


Callaghan, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Knapman, Roger


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lamond, James


Carttiss, Michael
Livsey, Richard


Cohen, Harry
McAvoy, Thomas


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maclennan, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Maginnis, Ken


Dixon, Don
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dobson, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meale, Alan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Nellist, Dave


Fearn, Ronald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foster, Derek
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gow, Ian
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Riddick, Graham

Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse and


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Bob Cryer.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: (e), at end add

'but that this House resolves, with respect to paragraphs 10 and 11 thereof, that any persons refused a pass shall have the opportunity to know the reasons for such refusal, and an opportunity to challenge any information, other than convictions, held on them by the police, and that the nature and source of the information against the applicant be made known to them and their sponsor.'—[Mr. Corbyn]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 177.

Division No. 64]
[12.7 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Lamond, James


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Livsey, Richard


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McAvoy, Thomas


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Buckley, George J.
Maclennan, Robert


Callaghan, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Nellist, Dave


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Patchett, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pike, Peter L.


Cousins, Jim
Primarolo, Dawn


Cryer, Bob
Ruddock, Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Salmond, Alex


Duffy, A. E. P.
Sheerman, Barry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Skinner, Dennis


Eastham, Ken
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fearn, Ronald
Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)


Fisher, Mark
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Holland, Stuart
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Home Robertson, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hood, Jimmy


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Harry Cohen and


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. Bob Clay.


Kennedy, Charles


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Alton, David
Curry, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Dixon, Don


Bottomley, Peter
Dobson, Frank


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Dover, Den


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Tony


Budgen, Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh


Burns, Simon
Emery, Sir Peter


Burl, Alistair
Fallon, Michael


Butterfill, John
Fishburn, John Dudley


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Flynn, Paul


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Foster, Derek


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Sir Marcus


Carttiss, Michael
Franks, Cecil


Cash, William
Freeman, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
French, Douglas


Chapman, Sydney
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Chope, Christopher
Gill, Christopher


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Gow, Ian


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Gregory, Conal


Cormack, Patrick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Cran, James
Ground, Patrick

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Pawsey, James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hannam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Portillo, Michael


Harris, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Haynes, Frank
Raffan, Keith


Hayward, Robert
Redwood, John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Renton, Tim


Heddle, John
Riddick, Graham


Hind, Kenneth
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ryder, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, David (Dover)


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)


Jack, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sims, Roger


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Speller, Tony


Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Squire, Robin


Lightbown, David
Stern, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Sumberg, David


McKay, Allen (Bamsley West)
Summerson, Hugo


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maginnis, Ken
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mans, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thurnham, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Maude, Hon Francis
Trippier, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Meale, Alan
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Miller, Sir Hal
Walden, George


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Warren, Kenneth


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Wells, Bowen


Moss, Malcolm
Wheeler, John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Whitney, Ray


Neubert, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Norris, Steve
Winterton, Nicholas


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Paice, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Mr. David Maclean and


Patnick, Irvine
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: (1), at end add

'with the exception that the maximum number of photo-identity passes for the Palace of Westminister for which a Member should be entitled to apply for individual members of his or her personal staff, as referred to at paragraph 54, should be five'.—[Mr. Dykes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 175.

Division No. 65]
[12.18 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boyes, Roland


Alton, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashby, David
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clay, Bob





Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Cohen, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Nellist, Dave


Cousins, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Dalyell, Tam
Porter, David (Waveney)


Doran, Frank
Primarolo, Dawn


Dover, Den
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dykes, Hugh
Radice, Giles


Fearn, Ronald
Riddick, Graham


Fisher, Mark
Robertson, George


George, Bruce
Ruddock, Joan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Salmond, Alex


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Sheerman, Barry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Holland, Stuart
Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Squire, Robin


Janner, Greville
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Waller, Gary


Kennedy, Charles
Wells, Bowen


Lawrence, Ivan
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Livsey, Richard


Macdonald, Calum A.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Simon Coombs and


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Matthew Taylor.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Gow, Ian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Amess, David
Gregory, Conal


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Baldry, Tony
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hannam, John


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Harris, David


Buckley, George J.
Haynes, Frank


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayward, Robert


Burns, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Home Robertson, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hood, Jimmy


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)


Cash, William
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunter, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Jack, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cryer, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Knapman, Roger


Curry, David
Lamond, James


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lightbown, David


Devlin, Tim
Li 1 ley, Peter


Dixon, Don
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dobson, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Duffy, A. E. P.
McAvoy, Thomas


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Durant, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Eastham, Ken
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Maginnis, Ken


Fallon, Michael
Mans, Keith


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maples, John


Flynn, Paul
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Foster, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springbum)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maude, Hon Francis


Franks, Cecil
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Freeman, Roger
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Meale, Alan


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Miller, Sir Hal


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)






Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Morrison, Sir Charles
Speller, Tony


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Moss, Malcolm
Stern, Michael


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stevens, Lewis


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sumberg, David


Norris, Steve
Summerson, Hugo


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patchett, Terry
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patnick, Irvine
Thurnham, Peter


Pawsey, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trippier, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Powell, William (Corby)
Walden, George


Raff an, Keith
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Redwood, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Renton, Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wheeler, John


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Whitney, Ray


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Widdecombe, Ann


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wiggin, Jerry


Ryder, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wood, Timothy


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. David Maclean and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the order [27 January], to put forthwith the main Question, as amended:—

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 25.

Division No. 66]
[12.29 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Alexander, Richard
Curry, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dalyell, Tam


Amess, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ashby, David
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Dixon, Don


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dobson, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Dover, Den


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.


Buckley, George J.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Budgen, Nicholas
Durant, Tony


Burns, Simon
Dykes, Hugh


Burl, Alistair
Eastham, Ken


Butterfill, John
Emery, Sir Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Fallon, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Carrington, Matthew
Flynn, Paul


Carttiss, Michael
Foster, Derek


Cash, William
Fox, Sir Marcus


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Franks, Cecil


Chapman, Sydney
Freeman, Roger


Chope, Christopher
French, Douglas


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcllffe)
Gill, Christopher


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cope, Rt Hon John
Gow, Ian


Cormack, Patrick
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Cran, James
Gregory, Conal


Cryer, Bob
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)





Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Ground, Patrick
Patnick, Irvine


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Pawsey, James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hannam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Portillo, Michael


Harris, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Haynes, Frank
Powell, William (Corby)


Hayward, Robert
Primarolo, Dawn


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Heddle, John
Raffan, Keith


Hind, Kenneth
Redwood, John


Home Robertson, John
Renton, Tim


Hood, Jimmy
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunter, Andrew
Ryder, Richard


Irvine, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jack, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sims, Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Skinner, Dennis


Knapman, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamond, James
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Speller, Tony


Lee, John (Pendle)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin


Lilley, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stevens, Lewis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McAvoy, Thomas
Sumberg, David


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Summerson, Hugo


Maclean, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maginnis, Ken
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Maples, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Trippier, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Viggers, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Walden, George


Meale, Alan
Waller, Gary


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Miller, Sir Hal
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Warren, Kenneth


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Whitney, Ray


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Neubert, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Nicholls, Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Norris, Steve
Tellers for the Ayes:


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Paice, James


NOES


Alton, David
Holland, Stuart


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Livsey, Richard


Clay, Bob
Maclennan, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Patchett, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pike, Peter L.


Fearn, Ronald
Robertson, George


Fisher, Mark
Ruddock, Joan


George, Bruce
Salmond, Alex


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Sheerman, Barry






Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, C. (IsI'ton amp; F'bury)
Mr. Simon Hughes and


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Mr. Matthew Taylor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Second Report of Session 1987–88 from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on Access to the Precincts of the House (House of Commons Paper No. 580) be approved, provided also that United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament may be issued with photo-identity passes allowing them access to the Central Lobby, the Lower and Upper Waiting Halls and the Committee Corridors.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may have been drawn to your attention that, when the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) was put to the vote, Tellers for the Government were counting, and it appeared to many hon. Members that the payroll vote was put into the Aye Lobby. As you know, that is contrary to the traditions of the House. When a Select Committee is reporting to the House in general terms, it is a matter for Members and the Government should not allow their influence, attitudes and ideas to be imposed on the House. It is clearly a case of the Executive taking away the rights of the House. I thought that I should draw that to your attention, although your room for manoeuvre on this issue is somewhat limited.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. He will know that the Government put in Tellers for all the amendments.

Mr. Don Dixon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. To put it on the record, the Government put in Tellers only for the Ayes on the amendment to which my hon. Friend referred

Litter

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. David Amess: The word "Rubbish" is often uttered and muttered by hon. Members when they disagree with the remarks of other hon. Members. Unfortunately, discussion of the subject in a more literal sense does not take place often enough in the Chamber. The subject of litter is not taken seriously enough and it is about time that it was. It should be given a high priority. However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is to reply and who has taken a positive interest in this subject, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister can certainly be absolved from any criticism in this matter. The agenda has been set to clean up our towns and make them litter-free. We now have to look at practical ways of achieving that end.
The problem of litter is self-inflicted. By and large, people are responsible for creating the problem in the first place. Dropping litter is anti-social behaviour and it is certainly not the fault of children. In Basildon last year, we launched a campaign called, "I love Basildon". The object was to say that we were creating a fine town and wished to make sure that we kept it that way. It specifically dealt with the problems of litter, graffiti and vandalism. There was an excellent response to the launch from the general public and particularly from schoolchildren. A number of them embarked on projects researching the control and eradication of litter. They have also decided to help in a practical way by carefully controlling litter within school confines and then helping with clean-up schemes in their locality.
I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that only today I received two letters on this subject. The first said:
We have saved an amount of milk bottle-tops to keep Basildon tidy. We do not know how many we have saved but we all hope it is over 200. We are still going to save them and we hope they will be useful to you. Yours sincerely, Mary, Karen, Jo-Anne and Emily".
Those children are in class 12 of Lee Chapel primary school at the Knares, Basildon.
The headmistress of Briscoe county junior school informs me that one of her classes will clear litter from a pond as their contribution to make Basildon beautiful. I certainly applaud that.
The reason why the "I love Basildon" campaign is so important is that, as my hon. Friend probably knows, we have the largest covered shopping centre in Europe—a good litter control model for the rest of the country to follow. I have said that I intend to appear all over the town at various times of the day and evening to see at first hand the job that is being done. If I am not satisfied that it is being done properly, I shall make sure that the agencies responsible for litter control respond positively.
I mentioned the positive response from young people because I am appalled by the poor example set by those who are supposed to be their elders and betters. How often we see people walking along the road, casually dropping litter in front of their children and allowing them to do the same. It is all too common to see people walking along eating food and then dropping the paper or packaging. Chucking drink cans into areas containing shrubs or plants is also a popular pastime. Another appalling


example is that of people driving along in their cars, winding down windows and throwing their rubbish on to the road, whence it is then blown into the countryside.
Those people are, of course, the first to complain when their rates are increased to cover rising refuse collection costs. The nerve of some of them, dumping large, unwanted objects on our highways and byways, is limitless. Cars, furniture, carpets and the like are often dumped anywhere by people who just cannot be bothered to take their rubbish to the municipal tip.
I am delighted to say that in Basildon the Commission for the New Towns is treating litter control as a high priority and supporting the joint estate management committee in its work. Skips are sited on each estate so that residents can dispose of all unwanted rubbish, and leaflets are being delivered informing them of dates, times and locations. The JEMs are being allocated money to use as they wish for estate improvements—extra litter bins, for example. A capital fund is also provided by the CNT so that JEMs can take on major projects to improve their estates—for instance, cleaning and landscaping areas that have become neglected and consequently attract extra litter. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the JEMs on their excellent work, and to emphasise that those who serve on them are volunteers.
All that is in stark contrast to what is being done in Basildon by those who should be responsible for keeping it clean and tidy. Basildon is supposed to be a hung council, with the Conservative chairman having the casting vote. In fact it is nothing of the sort: it is a Socialist council, and has been so in all the time that I have represented the town in Parliament. Recently a Liberal councillor declared himself an independent—independent, that is, to vote overtly with the Labour party while not actually joining it. That will not wash. It is rightly seen as a cynical ploy technically to avoid the Labour party's being seen to have a majority on the council, taking control and then having to accept the consequences of its irresponsible spending policies.
If it is not a Socialist council, the suggestion is that the officers are running the council—and that clearly cannot be the case in Basildon. How else can one explain the constant barrage of anti-Government propaganda being put out on the rates? The council is good at claiming credit for things in which it had no hand, but not at accepting responsibility for its actions. It is now unfairly criticising private enterprise for the lack of litter control in the town centre. I have met the management company and I am impressed with what it is trying to do. For instance, it is installing anti-vandal litter bins and employing high-suction cleaning equipment to try to sort out the litter problem.
I am asking all the fast food outlets in the town to sponsor litter bins, and the management company to play a looped tape welcoming shoppers to the town centre and asking them not to drop litter. I am also asking for similar action to be taken in another shopping centre, in Laindon.
In the battle against litter, I will accept no defeatist talk. There are those who question the use of litter bins, on the grounds that they are not used or emptied. They ask why we should plant young trees or shrubs, which will be vandalised. They ask why we should display signs showing the penalties for dogs fouling the footpaths, because the owners take no notice of them and the dogs seem unable to read them. If we adopt that sort of attitude, Parliament

itself will become unnecessary and eventually anarchy will result. There is much that we can do, and the Government and the keep Britain tidy campaign are doing a great deal.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) had hoped to be here tonight; unfortunately, they are in Strasbourg on Council of Europe business. The hon. Member for Wallsend, who last raised the subject a year ago, has campaigned vigorously to cut down litter in this country, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East.
I should be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister thinks about the City of Westminster council campaign to tackle litter. A constituent has written to me to say that he thinks Basildon needs an enforcement patrol similar to the zone improvement patrol in Westminster. He says that he is a founder member of the team, and adds that with a combination of education, persuasion and, if all else fails, prosecution, the team has made a great impact on the city. After covering an area for two weeks, a great improvement has been noted, and I am informed that since the launch of the team in July 1988, more than 70 people have been taken to court and another 250 are awaiting court proceedings.
That experience encourages me to support fines for litter offences. My hon. Friend will know that many local authorities, including Bournemouth, are watching the implementation of the Westminster Act with great interest because they are poised to introduce private Bills seeking similar powers. But so many private Bills would clog our legislative process. Primary legislation is necessary to enable the authorities to implement their schemes.
I do not suggest that punishment is the whole answer. I lay even more stress on a public awareness and education campaign being launched. I hope that it will include television advertisements about beautiful litter-free Britain. We must also extol the virtues of recycling and tell people that there is money to be made out of rubbish. The Basildon Waste Paper Company is prepared to purchase rubbish. I am encouraging voluntary organisations in the constituency to take advantage of that offer to boost their funds. I know that the local scouts will do so. The cash incentive will lead to an overall improvement.
My hon. Friend the Minister may be interested to know that the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment is extremely concerned about the litter problem and has made some useful observations that are worth airing. It says that it has been shown repeatedly that members of the public are often ready to add to existing piles of litter when they would be reluctant to be seen as the first offenders. In other words, the council believes that frequency of clean-up is essential.
The packaging council believes that if we are to tackle litter effectively, a properly organised litter collection by local authorities is paramount. Bins must be large enough and emptied sufficiently frequently so that they do not overflow. Domestic refuse must be collected on the appointed day so that rubbish bags are not left in the street to be overturned and the contents scattered by scavenging animals.
Clear lines of responsibility for cost-effective litter control should be established within local authorities, which would include a proper analysis of local sources of litter so that resources can be concentrated where they are most needed. The packaging council also supports a vigorous and continuous public education campaign.
Packaging represents a statistically smaller proportion of litter than is usually realised; its visual effect is disproportionately large. Packs that are designed to stand out on supermarket shelves obviously stand out in hedgerows. The organisations to which I have referred would like to lend their support to Westminster city council's fixed penalty system.
I am proud to be British. I am proud of my country and I am certainly proud of the Government. Tomorrow, I am launching in my constituency a campaign that will be called Buy British in Basildon. I am sure that 1992 will provide splendid opportunities for us all. I want visitors to Britain to leave with a good impression of how clean and tidy we all are. We should all feel guilt and embarrassment when we drop litter. The solution to the problem lies with the British people, and I am confident that we can cure it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on raising an extremely important issue at this late hour. No one could rightly describe his remarks as rubbish. He has made an encouraging and informative contribution to our discussions on litter. Many of his remarks will be echoed as I reply to the debate. For example, he has shown a determined and optimistic approach. He believes that we must harness many different groups within society if we are to tackle the problem, including the business community and the voluntary sector. We must encourage a higher public profile and analyse carefully the sources of litter. We must take a rigorous and thorough approach to refuse collection generally.
The public debate in which we have all been participating about environmental problems in recent months has focused largely on the serious threat to our future on the planet that is posed by damage to the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect and climatic change. Much of this was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her address to the Royal Society. It is hard to think, however, of an environmental subject that affects us more directly and more regularly than litter. It is an issue in which the ordinary citizen has an essential and central part to play.
Without the co-operation of ordinary people, no Government, no local council and no environmental pressure group will make any headway in the battle to clean up our streets, and it is an important one for many reasons. Dirty streets in our major cities create a dreadful impression on tourists from abroad. It is hard to return from a holiday in Britain with a positive view of Britain if one has been confronted throughout by piles of rubbish in every street. Shopkeepers, for example, have a direct interest in ensuring that the areas around their stores are kept clean. People can easily be put off shopping in an area that is covered with filth.
Perhaps most important of all, concentrations of rubbish in some of our bleakest inner-city council estates can play a large part in depressing the morale of those who have to live or work in that environment.
Like my hon. Friend, I take litter very seriously. We have a beautiful country in which we should be able to take pride. The countryside and the townscape are just as much

a part of our heritage as are historic buildings and the royal parks and palaces. They deserve and need the same amount of protection from pollution and litter.
The evidence of our own eyes is sufficient to show that standards are certainly not improving, and may sometimes be falling. The Royal Fine Art Commission's report, "A New Look for London", graphically illustrates the disgraceful appearance of many parts of our capital city.
What we can and must do is to encourage a climate of opinion in which litter dropping is seen for what it is—offensive, boorish and selfish behaviour. That is why we must ensure that our children start life by understanding their responsibilities as future citizens of their country. I welcome the fact that schoolchildren in my hon. Friend's constituency have so enthusiastically joined his "I Love Basildon" campaign. The experience will remain with them throughout their lives, and I have no doubt that they will go on to set a good example to their parents. But it is not just a matter for teachers. We cannot expect children to behave well if their parents set bad examples. Schools must play an important part in the process, as they do in my hon. Friend's constituency.
That is why I am especially delighted that the Tidy Britain Group, with which we work closely and which is our agent in the litter campaign, has an education programme for use in schools. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is gathering information from Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools on the severity of the litter problem there. I urge headmasters in every school to work with us in ensuring that their pupils understand the importance of showing respect for their environment. I was especially impressed by a recent example of that: the initiative of a headmaster in a Windsor school, who encouraged his pupils to tidy the premises at the end of each working day. There are many similar examples throughout the country.
I make it clear that I fully recognise the responsibilities of the Government to help to create a cleaner Britain. We intend to carry them out vigorously and effectively.
The Tidy Britain Group acts as the Government's agent in litter matters. It is a voluntary, non-profit making registered charity that was started more than 30 years ago and has developed professionalism and expertise in litter problems. As a sign of how much we value the group, the Government nearly doubled its funding for this year and will more then double it again next year. The group has set up 27 projects, with the assistance of additional grant, in which different approaches to litter problems are being undertaken and assessed. The projects fall under five broad headings: transport, commercial areas, local government, tourism and special events. Many of their lessons are similar to those learnt in Basildon.
The objective of the projects is to enlist the support of all sections of the community through the development of civic pride. The projects are at various stages of development. I am happy to report that there is widespread support for them not only in principle, but in practical, active commitment and in financial backing. Nearly £4 million has been pledged in cash and kind to support the projects, which is an extremely encouraging augury for the future. The important task is to complete the formal assessment of which experiments have worked well and which have not. We shall receive those reports in the next few months. The objective then will be to develop as soon as possible the most promising approaches. The Department will make available additional funding to the


group over the next financial year so that we can press ahead in drawing lessons capable of wider application and building on successful contracts.
Local authorities have a vital role to play. I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend's remarks about his local authority. They are, of course, litter authorities and there is power under the Litter Act 1983 to levy fines of up to £400. Many local authorities are already pursuing community environment programmes in co-operation with the Tidy Britain Group. Those programmes involve many sectors of the community in cleaning up their areas. Local publicity is used to help attain the objective of keeping them clean.
I should particularly like to comment on the approach, to which my hon. Friend referred, in the city of Westminster. As the House will know, it has been given the power to levy on-the-spot fines. Last Friday, I learned about it at first hand. I was greatly impressed by the commitment and determination with which it is clearing up our capital city. It is worth remembering that Westminster obtains excellent value for money. Its cost per tonne for litter collection is one of the lowest in London, comparing very favourably with neighbouring boroughs. We are monitoring the practical effects of the implementation of the Westminster scheme and we shall be looking at the results it has achieved at the end of May. We shall then consider the lessons that can be learnt and how matters should develop.
Another experiment involving local authorities is being undertaken by the Tidy Britain Group. Three counties and their district councils are drawing up, on a voluntary basis, countywide litter plans. We shall study the results of those projects closely to see whether the value of such plans justifies the effort and cost of drawing up and implementing them. We shall then be able to judge whether it would be right to implement section 4 of the Litter Act 1983, placing a duty on local authorities to draw up litter abatement plans.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this vital matter. He has provided an opportunity for us to set out Government policy. We want to do everything we can to work within the existing legislative framework. We should like to build on the good will and support of local communities and local government. My hon. Friend's experience is not unique. If individuals are committed and enthusiastic and determined that their district or constituency will be cleared up, others follow. There is great concern and enthusiasm for constructive, committed and enthusiastic schemes such as those my hon. Friend has described. I can assure the House that the Government will not hesitate to come forward with further legislation should that be seen to be necessary.
In the short term, we hope and believe that the valuable experience gained by the Tidy Britain Group will give us a clear understanding of where we should best direct our efforts and resources in the future. We shall be looking at the results of using fixed penalties, which my hon. Friend described and which are being used in Westminster. It is worth noting that, although the maximum fine for dropping litter is £400, the average fine is only £32. One of the Tidy Britain Group's schemes is to study enforcement, talking to local magistrates and the police in various parts

of the country about the importance of litter and considering whether it is possible to impose more severe fines.
It seems clear that success breeds success. People lend not to throw litter in clean areas. On the other hand, where a street is filthy, an extra bit of litter does not seem to matter. That is why my hon. Friend's remarks about the strategic placing of litter bins and about litter bins looking empty, attractive and available are important. There are 500 litter bins in Oxford street alone, such is Westminster's commitment to ensuring that litter is removed. When hitter bins are available, they must be emptied. Nothing is more likely to attract litter than an overflowing, scruffy litter bin. These and other lessons about the effective and efficient management of refuse collection, raising enthusiasm and a determination to tackle the problem are matters to which we, the Tidy Britain Group and, clearly, my hon. Friend are committed.
We should not leave the responsibility for keeping streets clean to other people; they may be leaving it to us. We should all take responsibility for our environment, and we should urge our friends and neighbours to do the same. It is time for local communities to declare war against the litter louts and to shame them into reforming their ways. Many communities are making excellent progress. I went on a litter pick in Farnham park, in my constituency, a year or so ago. There are myriad examples of scouts, brownies, voluntary groups, chambers of commerce and Rotary clubs working together to co-operate, assist and play their part. If the Government, local authorities and local people work with a common will, we can and we will win the battle against litter and create a tidy Britain of which we can all be proud.
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, because many of us can follow his example. He referred to hon. Members who have also been long-standing campaigners in the Tidy Britain campaign. The Tidy Britain group has tried experiments in different areas and not only like those in Basildon, where my hon. Friend clearly faces difficulties with the largest shopping centre in Europe.
We are also looking at transport, commerce, local government, tourism and special events. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic has been particularly helpful in assisting the Tidy Britain group in some of its motorway service area projects. The group monitors its projects professionally, takes details of the project areas before the schemes start and assesses the value of the various contributions with an analytic approach to the methodologies used so that the best practice guidelines can be achieved and be generalised around the country.
There is no doubt that as we in Britain look to a future in which we can be proud of our country and of all that we have achieved, we want to take a pride in our physical surroundings. Litter is offensive, unnecessary and costly. We all have a part to play in ensuring that we get rid of this scourge once and for all.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past One o'clock.